Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Falkirk and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NATIVE TROOPS (MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Indian troops who enlisted for the duration of the War are still serving in Mesopotamia and Northern Persia without having had any leave in India; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this injustice by arranging a proper system of leave for these troops?

Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend (Mr. Montagu) has asked me to answer this question. I understand that Indian troops in Mesopotamia have been granted leave as far as the exigencies of the service permit. A report from the General Officer Commanding has, however, been called for on the matter, and I will write to the Noble Member as soon as it is received.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that a number of these men who enlisted only for the period of the Great War, and although two years have elapsed they are still being retained with the colours?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot give details without notice, but if the Noble
Lord will put a question down I will answer it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS ELECTIONS.

Colonel YATE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what provision has been made by the Government of India requiring a deposit from each candidate for election to the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils, to be returned if the candidate secures a prescribed number of votes, but otherwise to be for feited, the same as in the United Kingdom

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India considered a proposal to include such a provision, but decided that conditions in India are not as yet ripe for the introduction of a penal rule of this kind, and that it was preferable to leave the question to be settled later as experience of the working of the new constitution may suggest. The Joint Select Committee endorsed this view.

Colonel YATE: If such provision be necessary in this country and in the Colonies, is it not equally necessary in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: The question is how soon? I think it as well to see if there are any frivolous nominations. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend desires to bring the Indian Constitution to the same position as the British Constitution, but I think a little patience in this matter is advisable.

Colonel YATE: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms Report it was laid down that with coming changes there must be greater liberty of action to the public servant in India and that he ought not to leave the task of political education entirely to the politician, but that he must explain and persuade and argue and refute, he will state for what reason were orders lately issued in India forbidding any Government servant to interfere or use his influence in any way in an election to a legislative council except that he may record a vote if he is qualified to do so; and whether he has sanctioned these orders?

Mr. MONTAGU: The orders issued in India forbidding Government servants to
interfere in elections appear merely to have taken the form of drawing attention to a long-standing prohibition of the kind in the Rules of Conduct for Government Servants. The opinions in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, were directed to the advantages of a freer exposition of the policy of the Government by its servants, they did not suggest that Government servants should be allowed or encouraged to turn themselves into electioneers or canvassers.

Colonel YATE: Is it advisable then to leave the political education of India entirely to agitators?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is not in the interests of the Service itself to interfere in elections.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Indian Civil Service is different from what it is here, and really almost all the political knowledge is, from an English point of view, contained in that Service. Would it not be wise to use the knowledge they have to help the new Constitution which my right hon. Friend has instituted?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think there are many opportunities other than interfering directly with elections.

Colonel YATE: What was the necessity for issuing this strict Order?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know the circumstances.

DISTURBANCES (PARDONS).

Colonel YATE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India for what reason men convicted of offences in the rebellion of 1919, and subsequently released under the amnesty, have now been formally pardoned to enable them to stand for election to the new councils in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the statement issued by the Government of India regarding the exercise by the Viceroy of the clemency which is within his prerogative.

The following is the statement referred to:—

In the case of persons who were convicted of offences connected with the dis-
orders of last year, but were not found guilty of personal participation in serious deeds of violence and have since been released in pursuance of the amnesty, the Government of India have always contemplated action that would remove the disabilities imposed under rules regarding election to new councils. The Governor-General has now been pleased to issue orders of pardon which will have the effect of removing such disqualifications in the case of the following 27 persons who were convicted in connection with the Punjab disturbances:—

1. Moti Ram.
2. Lahna Singh.
3. Kali Nath Roy.
4. Radna Kishan.
5. Amar Nath.
6. Mangal Sen.
7. Labh Singh.
8. Matti Ullah.
9. Sarob Dial.
10. Jagan Nath.
11. Doctor Saif-Ud-Din Kitchlew.
12. Doctor Satyapal.
13. Kotu Mal.
14. Narain Das.
15. Anubhawan Nand.
16. Dina Nath.
17. Gurbaksh Rai.
18. Ghulam Muhammad.
19. Abdul Aziz.
20. Lala Har Kishan Lal.
21. Ram Bhaj Dutt Choudhuri.
22. Lalya Duni Chand.
23. Allah Din.
24. Mota Singh.
25. Govardhar Das.
26. Brij Gopa Nath.
27. Durag Das.

Colonel YATE: What advantage will it be to the new councils to have the presence of these convicted rebels on them?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know whether they will get in. The point at issue and what the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for is for what reason the men convicted of offences and subsequently released under the amnesty have now been formally pardoned. I will supply him with the reasons as stated by the Government responsible for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Colonel YATE: Is it with his approval that these men have been specially pardoned in order to allow them to stand for the election of the new councils?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that the Royal Prerogative of the Crown is vested in the Viceroy under the warrant of his appointment, and I do not propose to interfere with that.

Colonel YATE: This question has nothing to do with the Royal Warrant. The Viceroy went out of his way to pardon these convicted men in order to allow them to stand for the election of these councils.

Mr. MONTAGU: It seems to me that if a particular prerogative is vested in particular people by custom, tradition, or doctrine, it is not for the Houses of Parliament or myself to interfere with the use of that prerogative. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better see the reasons which the Viceroy himself gives.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that no communications whatever and no suggestions have passed from the India Office at home to the Viceroy of India on this subject?

Mr. MONTAGU: There were innumerable suggestions and communications connected with this question when the terms of the Royal Amnesty were decided upon. I will look up the records. If my right hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give him an answer.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is that consistent with the statement that nobody interferes with the Viceroy's discretion? Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that communications and suggestions have passed from him to the Viceroy about matters which should be the Viceroy's prerogative?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would prefer to have notice of that question, as I do not remember the precise terms of the communications.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the same policy be adopted towards Ireland?

SAWE DAGON PAGODA HILL (BURMA).

Mr. HIRST: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has now made inquiries into the question of the occupation of part of the Sawe Dagon Pagoda
Hill, in Burma, by the military as a fort and arsenal; and whether he will take steps to have such occupation terminated?

Mr. MONTAGU: The result of the inquiries I have made is that the Government of India have reported that no portion of the pagoda precincts used for religious purposes is occupied by the military, but the arsenal is situated within the outer boundary limits of the pagoda. Prior to the second Burmese War of 1852 the pagoda formed an integral part of the fortifications defending Rangoon, and, in fact, was the citadel, so that in occupying the precincts the precedent of the Burmese themselves has been followed. The pagoda hill is strategically important, but the local government of Burma and the local military authorities are considering the possibility of removing the arsenal elsewhere and of levelling the defences.

OFFICERS' PAY (DEDUCTIONS).

Mr. PRETYMAN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the discontent and hardships that have been caused throughout the Indian Army owing to the deductions now being made from officers' pay by the pay authorities in India requiring refund of allowances said to have been overpaid to officers while on service, and the inability, especially of married officers, to meet these unexpected calls; and will he have an inquiry made into the case of all officers from whom these deductions have been levied, with a view to the cancelling of the deductions and the wiping off of the alleged debt?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have no reason to think that recoveries are being made on so large a scale, but I shall be happy to investigate any material which the right hon. Gentleman may care to send me.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very difficult for individual officers to put forward their own case? I am sure he would not wish to show any favouritism in any particular case which may be put forward here. Is he aware that in some cases hundreds of pounds are being claimed for poor married officers? Will he look at the matter generally, rather than into individual cases?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am aware that in certain cases there is hardship to officers, and the India Office always does its best
to help them. I will gladly investigate the question again and shall be pleased if hon. Members possessing information will assist me by forwarding facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

COLONEL SIR ARNOLD WILSON.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India how the services of Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson, late Civil Commissioner in Mesopotamia, will be utilised now that Sir Percy Cox has replaced him?

Mr. MONTAGU: Sir Arnold Wilson, who has left Mesopotamia, is about to take some of the leave that is due to him, and I cannot make any statement regarding his employment thereafter. Perhaps I may be allowed to express here the high appreciation of his services which has already been conveyed to Sir Arnold Wilson officially on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

LOCALLY RECRUITED LEVIES.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made with the formation of locally recruited levies in Mesopotamia; how many British and how many Arab officers have been appointed to this force; is the force organised on a military or police basis; what is the estimated annual cost of this force; and will this fall entirely on the Mesopotamian Budget?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Arab levies as constituted at the end of 1919 were a civil force consisting of 13 units, with a total sanctioned strength of 6,475.
With effect from 1st January, 1920, three of the Euphrates units were reconstituted as a single unit on a military basis. It was subsequently decided to apply the same policy to the remaining units of the force. The number of British officers in the force is approximately 30; the sanctioned strength of Arab officers is 82.
The sum of Rs.47,59,420, chargeable to Mesopotamian revenues, was included in the Budget Estimate for 1920–21 on account of the levy force. Provision was made, however, for a contribution from Army Funds in respect of quasi-military duties performed by the levies on behalf of the Army.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When shall we have laid on the Table of the House the Budget Estimate to which he has referred, namely, for 1920–21, on account of the levy forces? We have asked for it before.

Mr. MONTAGU: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for reminding me of it. I will inquire about it this afternoon.

Colonel YATE: Is there any prospect of increasing the number of these Arab levies, and will any units be raised from the Assyrians and the Chaldeans?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the policy of the Government to raise sufficient native levies to take over the policing and the defence of Mesopotamia?

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the new Arab Government will take immediate steps to increase the Arab levies with a view to releasing our own troops. Up to the present, however, I understand that the efforts of our officers have been concentrated on training efficiently a small nucleus of the Arab Army rather than in getting together a large number of recruits, which it would be impossible to train efficiently.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these levies are recruited from the Bedouins of the desert or the riparian fellaheen? Does he know what class they are or are they all classes?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice?

Colonel YATE: May I have an answer to my question as to whether Assyrians or Chaldeans are being recruited?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MILFORD AND PEMBROKE DOCK (DUTY BOATS).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many duty boats are employed for communication between Milford and Pembroke Dock; if the number is as great as during the War; and if the number is really necessary and used to the fullest extent?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): No boats are, or have ever been, told off specially for communication between Milford and Pembroke Dock. There are two drifters and two harbour launches engaged in attending on the trawlers which are waiting for disposal. This number cannot be reduced at present.

WAR VESSELS, DISPOSAL.

Captain R. TERRELL: 15.
asked First Lord of the Admiralty how many war vessels of any sort have been sold and scrapped since the Armistice; and what is the sum realised from each process for the nation?

Sir J. CRAIG: It is assumed that the hon. Member is referring to vessels of all descriptions, the property of the Admiralty, used by the Admiralty in the War for warlike purposes. The total of vessels "sold" is 1,231, and the sum realised is approximately £10,024,000. The number of vessels "scrapped" is 638, and the sum realised is approximately £3,464,000.

Captain TERRELL: Have any of the vessels been sold to foreign countries, and, if so, were they sold complete with their guns?

Sir J. CRAIG: I have in mind a few ships, but if the hon. Gentleman wants specific information, perhaps he will put down a question.

Captain TERRELL: To which countries were they sold?

Sir J. CRAIG: For the sake of accuracy, it would be better to put down a question.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Were not most of these vessels supposed to be obsolete?

Sir J. CRAIG: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

COASTGUARD (OFFICERS AND MEN).

Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers and men of the coastguards serving in Ireland, and who, through the conditions of their service, suffer partial or total
loss by fire, looting, or otherwise, of their effects, personal or otherwise, are entitled to compensation; whether, if the wives and families of officers and men of the coastguards remain in Ireland, they have to do so at their own expense without any grant; whether he is aware that, owing to the destruction of their furniture, etc., these men have to take furnished houses; how many claims for compensation have been made in this connection; how many are still awaiting settlement; how many claims have been in existence without settlement for two, six, nine and twelve months respectively; what is the reason for delay in settlement; and will the Admiralty permit officers and men so affected to be transperred, with their wives and families, and such effects as they may possess, to England at public expense?

Sir J. CRAIG: Officers and men of the coastguard serving in Ireland are entitled to compensation from public funds for damage to, or loss of, their uniform, clothing, and household furniture, when such loss is not recoverable from the party responsible for making good. The second part of the question is not understood, as officers and men of the coastguard are entitled to service accommodation or allowances in lieu. No claims in respect of the renting of furnished houses owing to the destruction of furniture belonging to officers and men have been received in the Admiralty, but ten claims have been received in respect of compensation for loss of, or damage to, furniture in official quarters. These ten claims are awaiting settlement. The claims, which were only received in the Admiralty on the 21st October, have been preferred on the local authorities in the first instance, and compensation has been awarded by the Court against the local authorities, but so far as is known this has not yet been paid. Instructions have already been given for the removal of wives and families of coastguard officers and men serving in Ireland and their effects to England at the public expense in all cases in which such removal is considered necessary for their safety. Officers and men who are required for duty in Ireland cannot, of course, be transferred to England.

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no undue delay in the payment of claims of this nature? In the case of
officers and men who have had their property burned or looted, will compensation be paid as promptly as possible?

Sir J. CRAIG: I do not think any Department of the Government takes more pains with regard to its servants than the Admiralty.

Mr. THOMPSON DONALD: Are not many of these people suffering hardship through lack of houses? Will he get some accommodation for them?

Sir J. CRAIG: Where there is difficulty in regard to accommodation, we endeavour to provide it for men with wives and families.

UNEMPLOYMENT, BELFAST.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the reason why 1,000 persons who were registered at the employment exchanges in Belfast on 15th October were not pair unemployment benefit; whether the 5,300 ex-service men and civilians in receipt of benefit were in every case discharged or suspended from employment by their employers; and, if not, how many of them were out of work through political and sectarian antipathy on the part of their fellow workpeople?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am making inquiry, and will let my hon. Friend know the facts as soon as possible.

Mr. MOLES: Is it not a fact, according to the official returns of the Board of Trade in the "Labour Gazette," the record of unemployment in Belfast is now, and has been for 20 years, the lowest in the Kingdom?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My figures do not, I think, bear out that.

ALDERMAN MCSWINEY (FUNERAL).

Mr. HOGGE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the coffin containing the remains of the late Lord Mayor of Cork was forcibly seized by agents of the Government at Holyhead on Thursday and conveyed by them to Cork; and, if so, by what authority, on whose instructions, and on what grounds was this action taken?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir H. Greenwood): I addressed the following letter to the relatives of the late Lord Mayor of Cork, which was handed prior to their arrival at Holyhead:
28th October, 1920.
I am advised that the landing and funeral of the late Lord Mayor in Dublin may lead to demonstrations of a political nature.
I regret, therefore, that the Irish Government cannot allow the disembarkation of the remains of the late Lord Mayor at any other port in Ireland except his native city, Cork.
In order to save you every inconvenience the Government has directed the London and North Western Railway Company to provide a suitable steamer to carry the remains direct to Cork from Holyhead.
This steamer will also convey you and twenty of your friends if you so desire.
The instructions to carry the terms of this letter into effect were issued by the Home Office and the Irish Office respectively, acting on military advice, and with the authority of His Majesty's Government. This action was taken in order to minimise the risk of inflaming public feeling in Dublin, which might have led to breaches of the peace and loss of innocent lives. The coffin and wreaths were moved with all reverence from the train to the boat by officials of the railway company. The relatives and friends to the number of 20 were offered passages to Cork on the same steamer, but they declined.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask first if my right hon. Friend indicated to Mrs. McSwiney in London that the cortége would not be taken to Dublin, and offered her an alternative then, before the procession started at all, to go straight to Cork?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No. The letter was addressed to Mrs. McSwiney, two sisters, and, I think, two brothers and the solicitor, and it was anticipated that she would be on the train. I believe, unfortunately, she was taken ill, and was not able to accompany the cortége.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it a fact that the coffin of the Lord Mayor had an inscription on it to the effect, "Murdered by the British Government," and was the coffin carried through the streets of London by men of the Sinn Fein Army in uniform?

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that extraordinary respect was paid to the dead, and that the instructions of the Government were both sympathetic and large-minded?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Was there any reason why this alteration could not have been conveyed earlier than the last day, instead of waiting till the last moment and then upsetting the whole arrangement; and was not the fear justified by the result?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not follow the last part of the question. It was impossible to give notice earlier than I did, because the original plan was to allow the relatives to do what they wished with the remains of the late Lord Mayor, but urgent messages were received in the afternoon of the funeral in London that the lives of innocent people would be endangered if the body of the late Lord Mayor were conveyed to Dublin, and that it would be used, as it was intended to be used, by the Sinn Fein leaders, as a great political demonstration. I had no course open, therefore, when that advice came to me than to change the arrangements already made. I did it with every consideration for those to whom the late Lord Mayor was nearest. The steamer put at their disposal was one of the best we had. The body was escorted by part of the Auxiliary Division Force of Dublin, which is composed entirely of ex-officers of the British Army, and part of the Metropolitan Police, and I have not heard a complaint as to the reverence and respect paid to the body of a man with whose views I, at any rate, differed as far as possible.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it a fact that this political demonstration, which was to be a great national tribute to a man who at least displayed superb courage in a very materialistic age, took place just the same, and that the only thing that was absent from the demonstration previously organised was the corpse of the Lord Mayor?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is quite a different thing.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the sending of a large force of police in the train, and having a large force of "Black and Tans" to meet it at Holyhead was all done as a mark of respect to the late Lord Mayor?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I never made any such suggestion.

Mr. MacVEAGH: You did.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There were no "Black and Tans" at Holyhead. I specifically asked for members of the Auxiliary Division, composed entirely of selected and gallant officers of the British Army, and I did that because I was informed that 400 Sinn Feiners were going to accompany the boat from Holyhead to Dublin.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Was that true?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That was my information, and it was my business to preserve peace on the steamers, whether going to Dublin or Cork, and to see that a suitable force should arrive with the members of the party in Dublin also.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mrs. McSwiney was consulted, and that it was her wish that the body should go to Dublin, or is it the case that she was not consulted, and that if she had been consulted she would have been quite agreeable that the coffin should go straight to Cork?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I know nothing of that.

Mr. DEVLIN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put down any further question.

Mr. DEVLIN: I would not have risen again, but I put a supplementary question upon a very important matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The more important it is, the more necessary it is to see it on the Paper.

REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Mr. WALTER SMITH: 58.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there have been any investigations as to the responsibility for the reprisals that have taken place in Ireland by the armed forces of the Crown; whether any persons have been found guilty and, if so, the number; and what, if any, is the nature of any punishment inflicted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Investigation is made into every case of alleged reprisals by the armed forces of the Crown. Disciplinary action has been taken in a number of cases of indiscipline, but I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the
question asked on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow on the 21st ult.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the town of Bandon was again raided on the night of 24th October by a band of soldiers; whether they burned down the hosiery factory in Hill Street; whether the company owning the factory is under the chairmanship of the right hon. the Earl of Bandon; whether the workpeople deprived of work by this outrage are being assisted in any way; and whether any person or persons have been proceeded against or punished for those acts?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question put to me on Thursday last by the hon. Member for Harrow. Pending the result of the inquiry which is being held, I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to this matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not answer the third part of my question as to whether the company owning this factory is under the chairmanship of the Earl of Bandon? Surely that is common property.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I believe the Earl of Bandon is a director of the company.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any pretence on the part of the Government that the burning of this factory was a legitimate reprisal on Sinn Feiners?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The matter is under inquiry and I cannot make a statement.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether if any further murders take place of the character of those of the last two or three days, the Government can see their way to arrest hostages amongst the Sinn Fein leaders, try them for high treason and shoot them if further murders take place?

Mr. J. JONES: Good old "General Buckshot!"

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ire-
land whether there has been a renewal, in the last two days, of the policy of reprisals, at Littleton, Thurles, Bally-bunian, Tralee, Galway, and Ballyduff; and whether he is now prepared to give a definite assurance that the Government will take immediate and adequate steps to break down this policy of frightfulness which is aggravating the already deplorable conditions in Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Following murders and attempted murders of police and soldiers in the places mentioned, there have been disturbances consequent upon the search for the criminals. That search is proceeding.
I have called for reports in all these cases, but they have not yet arrived. In most of the cases mentioned the telegraph wires were cut by the criminals, and communication is therefore difficult. I am informed that the police are in a state of great indignation following the assassination of their comrades.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the continuance of the burning of creameries, the firing of towns, the threats of murder against representatives of the British Press, and the destruction of life by the forces of the Crown in Ireland, and, in view of the appalling conditions which these outrages have aggravated, the immediate necessity of such strong and vigorous action on the part of the Government as will put an end to this disastrous policy of reprisals."

Mr. SPEAKER: Yesterday I said there was not sufficient evidence to support this Motion. I fail to see that there is any fresh evidence to-day. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that as soon as there is any definite evidence on any of these matters I shall be quite prepared to accept his Motion, so far as I am concerned. I think that he has not carried the matter one inch further than it went yesterday. Instructions have been given for a report to be sent in at once, and, for the reasons given, that report has not yet been received. If the House is prepared to discuss these matters it should at least have some further information.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I point out that yesterday I called attention to the practical burning down of several houses, and
the discharge of firearms by forces of the Crown in a Northern town, and that this has gone on in several other places in the country. Is not the only way in which we can put a stop to these things to draw the attention of the House of Commons to what is going on? We have for four days been waiting for information that has not arrived, although, when there is any point in his own favour, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary can always get the information. It is four days since some of these incidents occurred, and because the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to secure the information, which is in the possession of everybody in this country who reads the newspapers, we are to be denied the right to discuss these matters in this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The firing of the towns to which the hon. Member referred resolves itself into the burning of two houses.

Mr. DEVLIN: That was an entirely different thing. The town I referred to was the town of Dungannon; the town the right hon. Gentleman referred to is in the South of Ireland. This is a Northern town, where political and religious passions may be let loose at any moment, and the forces of the Crown have gone out there, where no policeman was murdered, and have wrecked the houses and fired indiscriminately through the town, and we are told that we cannot discuss the matter here.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member places me and the House in a great difficulty because he refers to these matters as "definite matters." For instance, "the burning of creameries." There has been no statement whatever with regard to the burning of any creamery since this matter was discussed a week ago. Then there is the "firing of towns." The hon. Gentleman cites one town. That town is not named in his particular motion for Adjournment. The matter must be definite. A general statement about the "firing of towns" and the "threat of murder against representatives of the British Press," as to none of which there is very definite evidence, lands the House in the difficulty that we are discussing matter with which the House is not and cannot be acquainted.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I respectfully point out that we here who are raising these matters have no method of getting information unless the information is given to us by the persons concerned and published in the Press. We are now told, that the decision is that only the Chief Secretary is able to bring forth reports—from interested parties who are perhaps the malefactors in these transactions—and we are not to be allowed to discuss the matter in this House, and these horrible proceedings may go on without Parliament being given a right to discuss them.

Mr. SPEAKER: If a matter is to be discussed it is surely right that the whole House, and not a very small section of it, should have the evidence and the statements on which the discussion is to be based. Until that is afforded I say that the House is not in a position to discuss the matter. As soon as it is made public I shall not for one moment stand in the way of the hon. Member raising the question.

Mr. THOMAS: How is it to be made public, except in one of two ways—either through the newspapers, through which publicity has already been given, or through this House in a Debate? Therefore the only way of raising the matter is from the published information in order that an answer might be given in the only right place, namely from the Treasury Bench.

Mr. SPEAKER: I should have thought that the way it would be made public would be by reports from those who have inquired into it. The newspaper reports are, after all, mostly only second-hand evidence at the most.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a question of urgency that the life of a British subject, the correspondent of a London newspaper, whose evidence is corroborated by a similar correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" with regard to affairs in Ireland, should be in danger, and that we are not allowed, at the request of more than forty Members of this House, to discuss that subject as urgent in order to know from the Chief Secretary whether the facts are true or not? It surely does not follow that a question raised from this side of the House requires to have that kind of evidence? I would point out respectfully that to-day
already my right hon. Friend, the Irish Secretary, in response to a question from this side, instituted an inquiry, the facts of which are denied in the question. We respectfully submit that Parliamentary institutions will be altogether useless unless we have these public opportunities of discussing these matters.

Mr. SPEAKER: The threat of murder, I take it, is the one about which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked the question, namely, that the man was "threatened by a policeman in uniform." That is the threat of murder, is it?

Mr. HOGGE: No.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is there any other threat?

Mr. HOGGE: Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have had no evidence of it whatever. This is the only one about which, as far as I know, there has been any question. On that question, the hon. and gallant Member bases the statement (whether it is true or not I cannot say) that Mr. Hugh Martin was threatened by police in uniform. Is that a sufficient reason for moving the Adjournment of the House upon the "burning of creameries, the firing of towns, and the destruction of life by the Forces of the Crown"? As soon as the hon. Member will produce a definite matter, I will certainly be prepared to admit it as urgent, and will accept a Motion for the Adjournment at once.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I submit this, that the House will be put into a very great difficulty if a Minister of the Crown may always avoid a discussion by being unable or unwilling to produce information. If my right hon. Friend can say that he will be prepared to produce the information, either now or as soon as ever he can—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has said so!"]—personally I do not see why we should not discuss it. But I do submit it would be a very disastrous precedent if the functions of this House were put entirely at the mercy of a Minister of the Crown.

Mr. SPEAKER: The consequences would be equally disastrous if a discussion were taken upon information of this sort,
about which the Minister of the Crown who has to defend it has received no information. It is really a commonplace of parliamentary procedure that before a discussion can take place both sides must have information. It is no use having a discussion where certain statements are made as to which the Minister says, "I have not got the information, and, therefore, I cannot deal with it." There can be no discussion under those circumstances.

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I call attention to the fact that 95 towns in Ireland have been partly sacked or looted within the past six months by uniformed forces of the Crown?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is less than 10 days ago that we had a discussion on that, and therefore what we are now asked to discuss is anything which has occurred between the period of that discussion and now.

Mr. MacVEAGH: We have never had an official report about the looting of any of these towns, and how long are we to be kept waiting for those reports, even although they are official reports of the officers who have, in many cases, conducted the looting and the sacking?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I need scarcely assure you, Sir, that I will obey most respectfully any suggestions that you may make as to the raising of this discussion; but may I say that my explanation of my proposal for the Adjournment to-day, as on previous days, is that these crimes are being committed daily? I have before me evidence—I agree that it is only the evidence of newspapers—that within the last two days, for instance, a woman with a baby at her breast was killed, and that a man was called out and killed, I think in the town of Tralee. I have several other instances of the same kind. I am sure you will quite sympathise with my desire to put an end to these outrages, which are a dishonour to this country. [Interruption.] Yes, to put an end to all of them. [Interruption.] And, I think, if you will allow me to follow that interruption, I will best put an end to assassination by private bodies of men if I attempt to prevent assassinations under the connivance and by the order of the Government of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Therefore, I will take your suggestion to give me the full right to
raise this question to-morrow, or until such time as the Chief Secretary puts the House in the position of raising the question by giving us definite information, either in corroboration or in contradiction of the statements of most responsible and respectable newspapers of the country.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the House whether the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to give us specific answers to these questions to-morrow? We do not want another saturnalia of assassination at the end of the week, and we are entitled before the House rises—tomorrow will be our last opportunity—to ask the right hon. Gentleman to have the information before the House. I must point out that it is quite customary to give notice of a question on the Tuesday calling for information with regard to certain incidents that occur in Ireland. We have called for complete answers on the most intricate and difficult questions on the Thursday, and yet this series of murders and lootings and firings of towns can go on for four or five days, and we have no information given to us?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman Las had the information that the wires were cut.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): On a point of Order. I should venture to say to you, Sir, and to the House, that the position seems to me, and to the Government, perfectly clear. We have no desire whatever to avoid discussions, and whenever there is a specific case put forward the Chief Secretary will at once take steps to get the information, and the moment he has it, we are ready to have a discussion. But it seems to me that it would be a waste of the time of the House if there was a discussion before the Government receives the information. On the other hand, as was suggested by my hon. Friend (Lord It. Cecil) the Government might try to burke discussion altogether by not getting the information. That would be absolutely unpardonable, and if that were done, I am sure that you, Sir, would not tolerate it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I say on the point which has just been discussed, that assuming the Chief Secretary for Ireland is in possession of information with regard to the two journalists who have been named, and that if the question is raised
to-morrow, it would then be sufficiently urgent and definite in your opinion to give the House an opportunity of discussing it, if supported by the necessary number of Members.

POLICE, BELFAST.

Mr. M'GUFFIN: 60.
asked the number of Catholic and Protestant policemen in the Belfast area, also their respective numbers in the year 1916; and whether their present proportions are in accordance with the Act regulating the constitution of that force?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Belfast force at present consists of 542 Roman Catholics and 562 Protestants. The corresponding figures on the 31st December, 1916, were 602 and 550. I am not aware of any statute regulating the religious constitution of the Belfast force or of any other police force in the United Kingdom.

MRS J. ANNAN BRYCE (ARREST).

Mr. HOGGE: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal under what authority persons are being arrested and detained in this country without the authorities producing a warrant or making any charge?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. I do not know what cases, if any, are referred to in the question, but Regulation 55 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations provides that any person authorised for the purpose by the competent naval or military authority, or any police constable, or officer of Customs or Excise, or aliens officer, may arrest without warrant any person whose behaviour is of such a nature as to give reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has acted, or is acting, or is about to act, in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the Realm.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it was under this authority that Mrs. Annan Bryce was arrested and detained at Holyhead?

Sir G. HEWART: I cannot say.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if I put down a question two days hence?

Sir G. HEWART: I will certainly inquire.

Major ENTWISTLE: 61.
asked whether the officer who arrested Mr. J. Annan Bryce at Holyhead on the night of Friday, 29th October, refused to produce any warrant or evidence of his power to arrest her; and under what authority he made the arrest?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to Regulation 55 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations and No. 55 of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations. The officer who arrested her was duly authorised by the competent military authority, and it was unnecessary therefore for him to produce a warrant for her arrest.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act apply to Holy-head, which happens to be in Wales?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In some cases, in my opinion, it does.

Mr. HOGGE: How is it that the Attorney-General, less than five minutes ago, said he did not know how Mrs. Bryce was arrested and my hon. Friend does?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No. I understood that my hon. Friend was not asked any question about Mrs Bryce.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What offence was committed by Mrs. Bryce?

DISTURBANCES, TEMPLEMORE.

Mr. HOGGE: 63.
asked whether an inquiry will be immediately instituted into the circumstances of the sacking of Templemore, county Tipperary, on the night of Friday, 29th October?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland has ordered a court of inquiry to be held into the incidents alleged to have taken place in Templemore on the night of the 29th October.

Mr. HOGGE: If this inquiry is being promoted, how can my right hon. Friend say anything about the facts until he hears the result?

JOURNALISTS IN IRELAND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the despatch sent by Mr.
Hugh Martin, the correspondent to a London daily newspaper now in Ireland, and published in that daily newspaper this morning, stating that he was threatened by policemen in uniform in presence of Mr. McGregor, the special correspondent of a London evening paper, in the streets of Tralee, on the night of Monday, the 1st inst., and whether he will give immediate orders that in no circumstances are any journalists in Ireland, British or foreign, to be attacked or punished by the police except under due process of law?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have read the despatch in question, and I have no information of the incident described therein, but I at once telegraphed to the District Inspector of Police at Tralee to inquire into the matter and to give me all the information in his power. The Government will take every step in their power to prevent any attack on any journalist in Ireland. Every facility is given to journalists, without regard to nationality or papers, to visit all parts of Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, in view of the very specific charges made in the presence of reputable witnesses, the right hon. Gentleman will himself at once telegraph ordering that no steps be taken against journalists in Ireland, British or foreign?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There are no steps being taken against journalists in Ireland. Ireland is the freest country in the world—for journalists.

Mr. DEVLIN: I had given notice of a question which related to the matter raised by the question just asked.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GENERAL WRANGEL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet received information as to the entertaining of General Baron Wrangel and his chief of staff on board His Majesty's Ship "Ramillies" on the 19th August last; whether members of the late British military mission to Baron Wrangel were present; and whether this is in accordance with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government. May I ask
for a reply particularly to the second part of the question? The first portion was answered on Monday.

Sir J. CRAIG: There is nothing to add to the reply given on Monday to the hon. Member for East Leyton.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman assured me on Monday that he would obtain information if possible whether members of the military commission recently with General Wrangel were present. Will he inform me if he has made inquiry, and with what result?

Sir J. CRAIG: I thought that what the hon. and gallant Member wanted to know was whether General Wrangel had been on board this particular ship officially invited. I ascertained that and gave an answer. I was not aware he attached particular importance to the other point, and I do not think it is quite fair to press for further information.

Captain LOSEBY: Is there any need whatever for mystery in this matter? Is there any objection to officers in their private capacity inviting General Wrangel if he chooses to honour them with his company?

TURKISH NATIONALIST FORCES.

Major HAYWARD: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Inter-Allied Admirals Commission at Constantinople has decided to establish a local blockade in the Black Sea against Soviet Russia; if so, for what reason; and whether this policy is contrary to the Supreme Economic Council's decision regarding interference with the trade relations with Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; but as long as arms are going to assist the Turkish Nationalist forces, the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, must have discretion to deal with the situation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that all ships can be detained and intimidated and practically prevented from going to Odessa and ports of that sort?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It means that the Commander-in-Chief has the same right as in similar circumstances has always been given to Commanders-in-Chief to
take all the steps he thinks necessary to prevent arms going to those who are fighting against our troops.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is he giving directions that peaceable commerce with Odessa is not to be interfered with by our ships?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is, I believe, no interference with peaceful commerce to Odessa, unless there is ground to suspect that in particular vessels arms are concealed and are going to those who are practically the enemies of the Allies.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ALLOWANCES.

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the estimated total amount of saving to the Crown based on the present cost, or the cost as known over some period of this year or last year, in respect of allowances for dependants other than wives and children, including special parents' allowance; allotment concession and family concession; Navy supplementary separation allowance; the London allowance of 3s. 6d. a week hitherto paid in the case of wives resident in London; allowances for unmarried wives and illegitimate children; allowances for adopted children; allowances for children above the elementary school age, at present 14 years; allowances for apprentices and children above the normal elementary school age who are mentally or physically incapable of earning a living; free railway warrants to men for annual leave; wives and children's half-fare passes; and childless wives' allowance, paid by the Ministry of Pension; what is the estimated additional gain to the Treasury from the imposition on officers and men of the Royal Navy of the full scale of Income Tax instead of the special scale which has hitherto applied; and how much has the cost of living increased since the pay of the Navy was last revised?

Sir J. CRAIG: No statistical record of these particulars has been kept in the Admiralty, but an estimate of the saving has been prepared as follows:—
Separation allowance and kindred allowances, £900,000 a year.
Free railway warrants and half-fare passes, £350,000 a year.
As regards childless wives' allowance, inquiry has been made of the Ministry of Pensions, but I am informed that no statistics exist in that Department on which an estimate of the saving to the Crown in respect of the naval service can be based. As regards Income Tax, so many factors have to be taken into account in the assessment of income for Income Tax purposes that only a rough approximation is possible. The total estimated gain to the Crown, taking into account all factors, is £200,000 a year. As regards the last part of the question, the index figure for the cost of living when the pay of the Navy was last revised was 120 per cent. It is now 164 per cent.

COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURES).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in estimating the index figure of the cost of living, due allowance is made for the item of rent, which has only increased by 40 per cent., and of travelling, which has only increased by some 75 per cent.; and, if so, in view of the considerable proportion borne by these items to the total, he can say what are the items which have increased so largely as to bring up the average to over 160 per cent.?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In preparing the index number relating to cost of living due allowance is made for the increases in rent and in fares, which are approximately as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Labour Gazette for October, in which details are given of the increases in the prices of various items included in the index numbers. It will be seen from these details that the items showing the largest percentage of increases are food and clothing. I am also sending him an extract from the Labour Gazette of March last, showing the methods by which the percentage increases for the various items are combined in the final index numbers.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TRADE UNION RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. STEWART: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a certain disabled soldier who was unable,
owing to this injuries, to follow his old trade as a stonemason was trained as a joiner at the Lord Robert's Memorial workshop; that he obtained employment with a firm of builders, and that the joiners' union refuse to admit him as a member, and have sent a delegate to say that the man's employment must cease, or else all the union men will be called out; can the Labour Department give an estimate of what such a man's training has cost the State, including allowances for maintenance during training and a grant for tools; and, as the above soldier's pension has been stopped because there are no grounds for further award and as he has a wife and three children, will he do what he can to assist this man and any similar cases which may be brought to his notice?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As my hon. Friend is aware, I received from him last night—and I thank him for it—the information which was necessary to identify this case. I am having an immediate investigation made into the matter, and will communicate further with my hon. Friend as soon as I receive a report on the case.

Mr. RAPER: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement as to the present attitude of the various trades unions in regard to the employment of ex-service men who are not members of the particular unions associated with the industry in which they seek employment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I have not the information at my disposal which would enable me to make a precise and detailed statement on the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and anything other than that, he will agree, I am sure, should be avoided.

Captain TERRELL: May I ask if any agreement has yet been arrived at between the Government and the unions representative of those in the building trade?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself are meeting the representatives this afternoon. All I can hope is that they will agree to lend a hand.

KING'S NATIONAL ROLL OF HONOUR.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a
position to state the number of employers in Liverpool whose names were added to the Roll of Honour during the months of August and September?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of employers in the County Borough of Liverpool whose names were on the King's National Roll on 1st August, 1920, was 317. They employ 2,790 disabled men. Six additional employers were added to the Roll during August, 18 during September, and 53 during October up to the 27th of that month, making a total of 394. The total number of disabled men now employed by the firms on the King's Roll is 3,654. In addition, three branches of firms with headquarters outside Liverpool were added during September.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers the figures of the Roll of Honour to be satisfactory?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not want to seem ungracious, but there are 400 firms in Liverpool with 25 workpeople, and I think they ought all to be on the Roll.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Mr. RAPER: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour what was the total number of men who did not serve in the Navy, Army, or Air Force during the Great War employed in Government Departments on, respectively, the 1st January, 1920, and the 1st September, 1920, and how many ex-service men have been discharged from Government Departments since the 1st January last?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The total number of men, who did not serve in the Navy, Army or Air Force during the War, employed in Government Departments, as denned for the purpose of the periodical returns presented to Parliament in this connection, was, on the 1st January, 1920, 144,144, and on the 1st September, 1920, 124,703. Without circularising the Departments I cannot state the number of ex-service men who have been discharged since the 1st January, 1920, but the total number of ex-service men employed in Government Departments has risen by 15,791 from 110,894
on the 1st January to 126,685 on the 1st September.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. WALTER SMITH: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any protests against the emergency measure providing for the payment of unemployment benefit by employers instead of through associations who have entered into an arrangement with the Department; whether he is aware that these associations were unaware of this emergency measure until it had come into operation; and whether, before adopting a similar measure in any future emergency, he will give full consideration to the views of associations who have arrangements for paying unemployment benefit to their members?

Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as I am aware, only one association has raised objection to these emergency measures, which are, I think, generally recognised to be inevitable in the circumstances in order to make possible the payment of benefit smoothly and without delay to the very large numbers involved. Such steps as were practicable were taken to give notice to the associations immediately before the emergency measures were put into operation.

EMPLOYMRNT EXCHANGES.

Mr. HIGHAM: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men were on the books of the employment exchanges in England and Wales at the end of August last; how many men were placed in employment through the employment exchanges during the month of August; and can he state what percentage of the men registered secured employment through the employment exchanges during the months of June, July, and August last?

Dr. MACNAMARA: At the end of August, 189,851 men were on the Live Registers of Employment Exchanges in England and Wales. During August 25,361 men in this area were placed in employment by the Employment Exchanges. This figure includes a very small number of men who were placed more than once during the month. The proportion of men placed to those registered was 23.9 per cent, in June; 20.8 per cent, in July; and 19.9 per cent, in August.
The figures are in all cases exclusive of casual occupations, which I do not include because it has been suggested that the statistics of the work of Employment Exchanges are unduly weighted by figures relating to such occupations.

Mr. HIGHAM: In view of the unsatisfactory number of employés placed by the Employment Exchanges, does not the right hon. Gentleman think they might be abolished?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am waiting, without prejudice, the Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes).

Captain STANLEY WILSON: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the Report?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. But as far as I know it should not be long.

I.—ESTIMATED NUMBERS EMPLOYED IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES AT JANUARY AND JULY, 1920.


—
January, 1920.
July, 1920.


Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.


Building
…
…
…
…
…
716,000
110,000
796,000
10,000


Mines and Quarries
…
…
…
1,296,000
9,900
1,323,000
9,600


Metal Industries
…
…
…
…
1,994,000
306,000
2,104,000
303,000


Chemical Industries
…
…
…
200,000
75,000
195,000
70,000


Textile Industries
…
…
…
…
546,000
878,000
560,000
884,000


Clothing Industries
…
…
…
241,000
584,000
238,000
569,000


Food, Drink and Tobacco Industries
…
356,000
257,000
359,000
242,000


Paper and Printing Industries
…
…
242,000
159,000
253,000
116,000


Wood Industries
…
…
…
…
240,000
65,000
245,000
65,000


Other Industries (including Gas, Water and Electricity under Local Authorities).
437,000
142,000
447,000
137,000


Total Private and Municipal Establishments.
6,268,000
2,487,000
6,520,000
2,456,000

Captain TERRELL: Is it not a fact that there has been a large increase in unemployment in the glass industry of this country, and can the right hon. Gentleman state the reason?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to look at the figures first. They are very detailed. If he then wishes to put down another question, I will do my best to answer it.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.

Captain TERRELL: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour how many trades unions

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Captain TERRELL: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there are any, and, if so, what branches of industry in which there has been a decrease in the number of workmen regularly employed since the beginning of the year?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am having published in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Table obtained from the Z.8 inquiries, showing the numbers employed in certain groups of industries at January and July of this year. I am also sending to my hon. and gallant Friend Tables giving the percentage of unemployed in each month of the year among members of certain trade unions, and also in the trades insured against unemployment under the Acts of 1911 and 1916, which would take up too much space if printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following the Table promised:

and how many friendly societies have hitherto notified their intention of working the Unemployment Insurance Act; and whether in all parts of the country the response is adequate from these two sets of bodies?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Up to the end of October the number of applications received was 169. Of these, 148 were made by trade unions, and the remaining 21 by friendly societies or associations specially formed in connection with friendly societies. The applications, which come from bodies connected with
nearly every industry, indicate a fairly general desire on the part of bodies eligible to do so to assist in the working of the Act.

WOMEN BAKERS, SCOTLAND.

Captain ELLIOT: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision on the case of the woman bakers of Glasgow recently dismissed under threat of a strike has yet been come to by the Scottish Bakers' Industrial Council; whether it is the case that one woman in the oatcake-making industry had been for sixteen years working at her trade before this dismissal; and whether, in view of the hardships that such cases entail, he will recommend that these women be temporarily reinstated and their case investigated before, instead of after, they are thrown out of employment?

Mr. SEDDON: 93.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the agreements between the master bakers and men's union to return to pre-War conditions, which are having the effect of displacing many women who were employed in the pre-War period with no benefit to the men, while creating great hardship upon many women; whether the masters' association and the men's union are in entire disagreement with the interpretation of the clauses in the agreement dealing with pre-War women workers; and, if so, he will cause inquiry to be made into this admitted hardship?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The scheme dealing with the employment of women in this trade, which has been prepard by the Scottish Bakers' Industrial Council, and to which I referred in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot) on the 28th October, is, I understand, now awaiting consideration by the Scottish Master Bakers' Association, and by the Executive Committee of the Scottish Bakers' Operatives' Union. The question of the temporary reinstatement of the dismissed women is a matter for agreement between these bodies, who are fully aware of the circumstances of the case, and I fear that I could not usefully intervene in the matter at the present time. I am sending my hon. Friend the Member for the, Henley Division (Mr. Seddon) a copy of my reply of 28th October on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lanark.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that in this industrial dispute, in which women only seem to be concerned, he will take all the steps that he would take if it had been a case in which men only were concerned?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. There is no reason, if I may say so, for making that suggestion to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLATES, NORTH WALES.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received an offer from the Cambrian Railway Company to convey freight free over their system to Aberdovey roofing slates from the North Wales quarry district which have been requisitioned for Government housing schemes, and to provide for wharfage; and whether notwithstanding this offer, slates have been sent to Queensferry, entailing the payment of full railway freight and storage charges?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have not received an offer from the railway company to convey slates on behalf of the Government freight free. Such an offer would mean nothing to the guaranteed railway company, but would be generosity at the cost of the general taxpayer. An offer has been received from them to store slates at their depot at Aberdovey free of charge for storage, and I am in negotiation with the company with regard to the details of this offer. The depot is suitably placed for the reception of slates from quarries in a certain district, but for other quarries it will still be necessary to make use of the depot at Queensferry, which is on the site of a Government factory.

BELLINGHAM SCHEME, KENT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the following particulars in connection with the purchase of land required for the London County Council housing scheme at Bellingham: Area of site, price asked by vendor, price offered by London County Council, value according to Land Valuation Department, and sum awarded by arbitrator?

Dr. ADDISON: The total acreage of the housing estate of the London county council at Bellingham is 294¼ acres. 114¾ acres were bought by agreement. The owner of the remaining 134½ acres agreed to a friendly arbitration as to the price. The expert witness for the vendor placed before the arbitrator a valuation of £79,000. The valuation of the Inland Revenue Department was £30,619. The Ministry had advised an unconditional offer of £32,000. The arbitrator awarded £31,529.

Mr. THOMSON: How many similar cases would be required to pay the whole of the cost of the Land Valuation Department for one year?

Dr. ADDISON: In this case alone it will take several years.

BUILDING GUILDS (CONTRACTS).

Mr. MYERS: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of contracts for the erection of houses by building guilds which have been approved by his Department, with the number of houses embraced by these contracts; and if he can give an assurance that it is the settled policy of his Department to approve contracts with building guilds, provided that the general terms of the contracts are satisfactory?

Dr. ADDISON: The Ministry of Health have approved eight contracts, comprising 1,003 houses, between local authorities and building guilds. These contracts form part of certain experimental proposals, in which the guild take the contract for the whole of the work, the number of which will be limited until the working of the guild system has been shown to be satisfactory. A form of contract is now being prepared for use in cases where the local authority desire to build administratively, providing for materials and transport, and to employ a guild as contractors for labour. This arrangement, if adopted, will provide for the guild opportunities additional to the limited number of contracts referred to. It is the policy of the Ministry to approve suitable contracts with building guilds or other persons able and willing to erect houses on reasonable terms.

CEMENT.

Mr. MOSLEY: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have
taken control of several cement works and are selling cement abroad to the detriment of builders engaged upon housing schemes who now find it impossible to obtain adequate supplies?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not aware of any case in which the Government have taken control of cement works and are selling cement abroad.

PRIVATE BUILDERS (GRANTS).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health what is the total amount of the grant to private builders which he estimates will be due under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act at the end of this year?

Dr. ADDISON: Certificates have been issued for 23,200 houses. If these houses were completed by the end of this year the approximate sum due would be £5,620,000.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it a fact that the Office of Works is already advancing money for building?

Dr. ADDISON: The Office of Works has nothing whatever to do with this.

Earl WINTERTON: Will two offices make grants under this Act or only the right hon. Gentleman's office?

Dr. ADDISON: No grants whatever are made except from my office.

PAUPER LUNATICS.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the cost of maintaining pauper lunatics has increased from 8s. 9d. to 28s. each per week whilst the Exchequer contribution under the Local Government Act, 1888, remains at 4s.; and whether, in view of the consequential burden cast upon the rates, he will take steps to increase the Exchequer contribution to a moiety of the total cash involved?

Dr. ADDISON: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a previous similar question, of which I am sending him a copy.

Dr. MACDONALD: May I ask whether it is still the custom in many of the county asylums of this country to supply beer to lunatic paupers?

Dr. ADDISON: I should require notice of that question.

POOR LAW RELIEF, POPLAR.

Mr. BLAIR: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Poplar Board of Guardians are in some cases of applicants for outdoor relief paying rent; if he will say whether this action is taken with his sanction; and, if not, what steps he proposes taking to see that the Orders and Regulations of the Ministry of Health are complied with?

Dr. ADDISON: A Poor Law Authority is not prohibited from taking into consideration the rent payable by an applicant for relief, and the reports which I have received up to the present do not support the suggestion that the Guardians are failing to comply with the Regulations in force.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether, before the Second Reading of the Ministry of Health Bill, he will issue a White Paper showing the expenditure involved under its various provisions?

Dr. ADDISON: A White Paper showing the additional expenditure of Exchequer money will be circulated when the Financial Resolution is put down.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to circulate it before the discussion to-morrow?

Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid not. At present the only item available is the deferred amount, of the building subsidy, and I am afraid it is not possible to prepare a statement for to-morrow.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Will it also show the cost to the rates as well as to the Exchequer?

Dr. ADDISON: If my right hon. Friend will be good enough to await my statement on the Second Reading, he will see that there are many misapprehensions on that subject.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether it is possible to give any estimate
of expenditure under powers which are permissive and not mandatory?

Dr. ADDISON: That, of course, is one of the difficulties. I shall show to-morrow that the expenditure in respect of the rates, so far as the Ministry is concerned, has been grossly exaggerated.

REFUSE DUMP, NORTHOLT.

Mr. MOSLEY: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet taken any steps to prevent the dumping of refuse at Greenford, Middlesex, by the Marylebone Borough Council; whether he is aware that the Greenford Urban District Council is unable to proceed in the matter owing to the fact that the clump is technically under the jurisdiction of the Uxbridge Urban District Council; and whether he will state what redress the inhabitants of Greenford possess against a nuisance which is detrimental to the health of the community?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not empowered to take the course suggested in the first part of the question. The dump referred to is situated in the Parish of Northolt, in the Uxbridge Rural District. It has been visited by one of the Inspectors of the Ministry, and after consideration of his report the Marylebone Borough Council have been asked to take every care to ensure that all necessary precautions are observed to obviate the possibility of the creation of any nuisance. With regard to the remaining parts of the question I may refer the hon. Member to the provisions as to nuisances contained in Sections 91 to 111 of the Public Health Act, 1875.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the inhabitants of Greenford not now possess another grievance?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. RAPER: asked the Minister of Health if the Government take into account the pensions granted to widows in respect of the death of their sons through War service when considering the assessment of old age pensions; and, if so, will he, for the future, discontinue this practice, which constitutes a hardship to a certain number of poor old women?

Dr. ADDISON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire on the 11th August last, copy of which I am sending him.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

NATIONAL WAGES BOARD.

Major KELLEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the first revision of miners' wages comes into operation at the end of December, it is possible in the interest of industrial peace that the National Wages Board should come into force at the same date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is part of the proposed terms of settlement that the scheme for the regulation of wages to be prepared by the owners and men shall be submitted at the earliest possible moment, but the task before the Joint Conference is a very difficult one, and I am afraid that it is hardly possible that they will be able to complete it by the end of the year.

Major KELLEY: Seeing, so far as we can judge from the morning paper, that the vote is anything but decisive, is it not urgently necessary that the Board should be set up in December, when wages have to be revised, if possible?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Board will be set up without a moment's delay, and both the mine owners and the men realised the importance of it at the time when the report was discussed, and both of them can be certain that there will be no unnecessary delay.

Major KELLEY: Six months is a very long time for business men to wait before coming to a conclusion.

Mr. BONAR LAW: But no one knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend how complicated it is. We have to deal not only with the general system but with individual cases, and it cannot be done except after a considerable amount of time has elapsed.

FACTORIES AND WOEKSHOPS (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.

Mr. J. JONES: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when it is proposed to proceed with
the Factories and Workshops (Bakehouses) Bill?

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is the strongest possible opposition in the House to this Bill proceeding any further?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer will answer both questions. I cannot say at present whether it will be possible to find time to proceed with this Bill.

Mr. JONES: Is it not a fact that the Committee were unanimous in their recommendations regarding night baking, and can the right hon. Gentleman not say anything more definite?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say anything more definite. The time is limited, and the fact that there is opposition will make it more difficult.

Mr. JONES: The opposition was not in Committee.

MUNICIPAL OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has in preparation a scheme dealing with the superannuation of the officers and servants of municipal authorities in Great Britain on the lines of the Report of the Departmental Committee; whether he is aware that on the part of numbers of municipal employés there is dissatisfaction with the recommendations of the Committee; and whether, before a Bill is introduced, he will consent to receive representations from organisations representative of the different grades of municipal employés.

Dr. ADDISON: A Bill on this matter is in course of preparation. I have already received observations upon the Report of the Departmental Committee from various associations of local authorities and employés, and I shall, of course, be quite willing to receive and consider representations which any organisations representative of municipal employés may desire to submit. But I think it right to point out that it will be very difficult to obtain legislative sanction for a general scheme of superannuation if every class of employés considers the scheme only from its own particular point of view.

LOCAL RATES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give the total number of the local authorities in England and Wales who are levying a rate for the current financial year of 20s. in the £ or more; whether he will circulate a list of their names and also a copy of any circular, or circulars, issued by his Ministry impressing on local authorities the need for economy, in view of the ruinous burden which the incidence of rates is causing on those citizens who have, to pay them?

Dr. ADDISON: As was stated in the White Paper on rates issued last night, I propose to issue as soon as possible a statement showing in the case of every urban district in England and Wales the amount in the pound of the rates levied in the current financial year and the previous year. In view of the nature of the causes, which, as explained in the White Paper, have contributed to the increase in rates, I doubt whether the issue of a circular in general terms would serve any useful purpose.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?

Dr. ADDISON: In the last part of the answer I did so.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to help municipalities in the direction of finding money by giving them power to levy rates on land values?

BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTIONS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the percentage of those on the voters' list who went to the polls for the resent election of borough councillors; and how does the figure compare with the percentage who voted on the similar occasion last year?

Dr. ADDISON: I regret that I am unable to furnish the information asked for in regard to the elections which have been held this week, but I will do my best to furnish them as soon as possible.

LEEDS AND BRADFORD (BOROUGH EXTENSION).

Mr. LUNN: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that one of the local authorities affected by the Leeds extension proposals have declared that if it costs their township £20,000 and they defeat the object of the Leeds corporation it will be worth it; and whether, in view of such determined opposition, and the fact that there are many thousands of unemployed persons in and around Leeds, apart from the miners' strike, he will urge upon the Government the necessity of finding some means to prevent this extravagance?

Dr. ADDISON: As I have intimated in reply to previous questions I am most anxious to reduce the expense of the local inquiries into proposals for borough extensions. I am endeavouring to arrange to discuss this question with representatives of the local authorities concerned in the Leeds and Bradford extension schemes.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong opposition of many Members of this House in all parts against imposing these burdens on local rates at this time, when they are already overburdened in meeting local requirements?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend, but his suggestion that this is due in any way to the Ministry of Health and the Government is entirely incorrect. It is entirely due to the administration and disposition of the authorities themselves.

Mr. LUNN: Why do you not prevent it?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no power to prevent it.

Mr. LANE-FOX (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health whether he has now arranged to discuss with the authorities concerned the question of the expenses involved in the borough extension proposals of the Cities of Leeds and Bradford?

Dr. ADDISON: I have invited all the authorities concerned to meet me before the end of the present month, in order to discuss what steps can be taken to minimise the expenses involved in the inquiry. The West Riding County
Council made a proposal to the Leeds Corporation that they should both forego the employment of Counsel and expert witnesses, and the Leeds Corporation were quite willing to fall in with this proposal if all the other local authorities would adopt the same course. But I understand that, in spite of the willingness of the City of Leeds, some of the other authorities have not yet seen their way to agree.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Until this question of expense is settled cannot the right hon. Gentleman use his absolute discretion to hold up these extension proposals?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not propose to authorise the inquiries, certainly until after this conference has met. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend as to an absolute discretion. There has to be a special reason for holding up the inquiry, and opposition is not a special reason. I have no control over economy. It is the local authorities themselves who are engaged in an orgy of expense.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Does not enormous expense constitute a special reason?

Dr. ADDISON: I have taken the best legal advice I cap and I wish that I could be advised that it was a special reason, but unfortunately you have this expenditure involved in every case, and it is clearly not a special reason. Otherwise, if you took that to be a special reason, the whole Act would be reduced to a nullity.

Lord R. CECIL: Would not great expenditure at this time and in existing circumstances be a special reason? This is not an ordinary case.

Dr. ADDISON: I am daily taking legal advice on this subject. I am just as anxious as my hon. Friends to do anything I can to prevent this expenditure, and I am awaiting this conference to see if anything can be done. I shall spare no effort to prevent legal expenditure being incurred.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why not stop these proceedings?

SAMOA (CHINESE LABOUR).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for
the Colonies whether, before the extension of the indentures for the Chinese coolies in Samoa was agreed upon, the New Zealand Government consulted the Imperial Government upon the matter, and with what result?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I would refer the hon. Member to the correspondence published in Command Paper 919.

NIGERIA (RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action is being taken to expedite harbour and railway development in Nigeria, having regard to the employment which will follow in this country in providing the requisite railway materials, etc.; is he aware that the next cotton crop in Nigeria is expected to be largely in excess of previous years and that the existing railway facilities are considered insufficient to move the crop; and will he make urgent representations to secure adequate transport development?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The developmnt of the harbour and railway facilities in Nigeria is being pushed on as rapidly as possible. It has been decided to resume the construction of the Eastern Railway, to commence at the same time the large bridge over the Benue, and to commence additional works in the Lagos and Port Harcourt harbours. Tenders for the materials required have been or are being called for. In addition, large renewals are being undertaken on the railway permanent way, numbers of new locomotives and wagons are being built and shipped out, and the construction of roads is being expedited to facilitate motor traffic. My hon. Friend can rest assured that every effort will be made to secure adequate transport for next year's cotton crop.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British South Africa Company, in addition to its claim for £8,000,000 sterling from His Majesty's
Government, is also claiming interest on that sum from about the year 1894; whether a further claim has been lodged for War charges, amounting to approximately another £2,000,000 sterling; and whether the latter sum will be subject to scrutiny by Lord Cave's Commission?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that the proposal submitted on behalf of the Company to the Commission in Rhodesia was that interest should be charged on each yearly deficit from the middle of the year in which the deficit occurred. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the position is that sums amounting to £1,915,000 were advanced by His Majesty's Government to the Company in the course of the late War in respect of the Company's expenditure in connection with the military operations in Rhodesia. This expenditure was incurred mainly in Northern Rhodesia, which is under a separate administration from Southern Rhodesia. It had, of course, no connection with the subject-matter of the inquiry conducted by Lord Cave's Commission, namely, the administrative deficits in Southern Rhodesia. The adjustment of the liability in respect of this expenditure between the Imperial Authorities and the Company is still under consideration, but I would refer my hon. Friend in this connection to the statement I made on the 9th of March last on the Supplementary Estimates.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

Major ENTWISTLE: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the elected members of the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Council have communicated to His Majesty's Government their desire for the grant of responsible government in accordance with the terms of the Supplemental Royal Charter of 1915; whether the Secretary of State replied that until Lord Cave's Commission had reported upon the claim of the Chartered Company against the Crown no advice could be tendered to His Majesty; and whether the elected members have expressed surprise and disappointment at this reply and have formally repudiated any liability whatever for the debts of the Chartered Company?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part the reply of the Secretary of State referrd to other reasons besides the unsettled question of the Chartered Company's claim as constituting difficulties in the way of an early compliance with the request of the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Council. As regards the third part the Council certainly expressed disappointment at the Secretary of State's reply, but I do not regard them as having repudiated any liability whatever for the debts of the Chartered Company, which would include debts contracted for public works. I hope shortly to make a statement on the whole subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he would tell us what the Business is for Friday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I propose to take, as the first Order, the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill and after that the Places of Worship and Enfranchisement Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is right. Mix them up!

BILL PRESENTED.

PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) BILL,

"to make further provision with respect to arrangements by local authorities for the treatment of Tuberculosis," presented by Dr. ADDISON; supported by Mr. Fisher; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 204.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 204.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment on Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment as to minimum price and average price.)

(1) The minimum prices for the wheat and oats of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one and any subsequent year shall be such prices for a statutory quarter as correspond to the following minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of the year nineteen hundred and nineteen (here inafter referred to as "the standard year"):—


Wheat
68s. per customary quarter of 504 pounds.


Oats
46s. per customary quarter of 336 pounds.

and the corresponding minimum prices shall be fixed in respect of each year in accordance with the following provisions:—

(a) The Commissioners to be appointed under this Part of this Act shall as soon as possible after the completion of the harvest in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one and each subsequent year ascertain the percentage by which the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of that year is greater or less than the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year.
(b) In ascertaining the variation in the cost of production no account shall be taken of any variation of rent:
(c) The corresponding minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of any year shall be such sums as are certified by the Commissioners to bear to the minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year the same proportion as the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the year for which the prices are to be fixed bears to the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year.


(2) Any fraction of a penny in the average price or minimum price per statutory quarter shall be disregarded.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act of 1917.
(4) The expression "statutory quarter" shall be substituted for the expression "quarter" wherever that expression occurs in the Act of 1917.

Amendment proposed [2nd November]: In Sub-section (1, a) after tho word "ascertain," to insert the words
in consultation with the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

4.0 P.M.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I should like to ask what is the real object of this Amendment? If the House will look at the Amendment it will see that it is proposed to insert after the word "ascertain" the words "in consultation with the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland." Now, if the House will look at Clause 3 of the Bill it will see that these Commissioners are appointed as follows: one by the Minister, one by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, one by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, one by the Treasury, and one by the Board of Trade. So that, as a matter of fact, all these Commissioners who are to make their findings in consultation with the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, have been appointed by these very bodies. I do not know why the Treasury and the Board of Trade are left out in the Amendment. Three Commissioners are appointed by the Departments I have just read out; one is appointed by the Treasury, and one is appointed by the Board of Trade. But the Amendment ignores the Treasury. I should have thought, if there is to be consultation with any Department, that that consultation should be with the Treasury, which is the Department which is supposed to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, but that Department is carefully left out. Therefore the Treasury and the Board of Trade will not have the advantage of being consulted by these Commissioners.
I think myself that that is a very serious blot upon the Amendment. If the Amendment is carried, and if there is to be consultation between these five Commissioners and the different Departments of the Government, surely the whole of the Departments which appoint Com-
missioners should be included in the Amendment.
But why is it necessary to have a consultation at all with these particular Departments? These Commissioners are gentlemen who, I suppose, would be chosen by the Departments and they are, I presume, gentlemen in whom the Departments have confidence. If that be so, and if these gentlemen in whom the different Departments have confidence are appointed to investigate into the circumstances, and they make those investigations and come to a conclusion, what on earth is the reason of their reporting again to these three different Departments? The only possible reason is—I can see no other, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill can see one—that the three Departments in question are afraid that possibly the Commissioners, being competent people, in coming to their conclusions on the evidence which will be submitted to them—I would point out to the House that the Commissioners are not given a roving Commission; they are given lines on which to proceed—will come to a more or less just conclusion. Is the Minister, if he finds that the conclusions are not satisfactory, to have the power to over-ride them? Is that a way likely to give confidence to the people affected by the decisions of the Commissioners? Everyone acquainted with agriculture will agree that on the lines laid down it would be very difficult to fix prices which would be not only satisfactory but which would allow, I will not say a profit, but prevent a loss being made to the farmer who grows wheat and oats. There is a further reason why I think this Amendment should not be accepted. It was not put in the Bill, and is evidently an after-thought. I am told it was withdrawn in Committee. Everybody who has served on Committees knows that when the Government withdraw an Amendment in order that they may consider it on Report, it means that if they did not do that they would have been defeated in Committee. They withdraw it, and they hope to re-introduce it in the House when only a small number are present, and when the solid phalanx of Members who are either now drinking tea or smoking cigars will come in, and, without the least knowledge of the discussion, support them. I see no earthly
reason for the Amendment. I do not know that it is very important, for the reason that I feel quite certain no farmer will ever get anything out of this Clause. It will be the Corn Production Act over again. The whole thing is illusory, but if you are going to make a show of doing something for the agricultual interest, at any rate do it in a proper manner, and if you appoint, Commissioners let them come to a decision.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I think that the opposition to this Amendment is based upon a complete misunderstanding. I explained when I first moved it my sole object in doing so. When we get to Clause 3 which appoints the Commissioners, I propose to ask the House to leave out "Commismissioners appointed by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland" and to revert to what was in the Bill originally, namely, three Commissioners, one appointed by the three Ministries of Agriculture conjointly, one by the Board of Trade and one by the Treasury. It was pointed out to me by Members from Ireland that it would be only fair that there should be an opportunity for the Irish Board to lay their facts before the Commissioners and the same applies of course to Scotland. It would have been much more convenient if I could have moved my Amendment on Clause 3 first, but that was not possible. In view of the subsequent Amendments I think it is only right that there should be this consultation with the respective boards in lieu of having special Commissioners of their own. I received an assurance that that would go a long way to meet the objection. The point has now been taken by some of my hon. Friends that if we say "in consultation with" these Boards or Ministries of Agriculture that will in some way subject the Commissioners to the advice or control of the Ministries of Agriculture. There was no such intention, nor do I think that would be the least likely to arise. All that will happen will be that it will be laid down that for the purposes of obtaining information the Commissioners should consult with the three Boards. It was far from our desire in any way whatsoever that there should be any kind of control of the Commissioners. I agree with my
right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) that the Commissioners ought to have, and as far as I am concerned they shall have, a perfectly free hand. That was our object, and I think that is the effect of our Amendment, but I do not wish for a single moment to ask the House to pass something which would give rise to suspicion among farmers. I wish in every possible way to limit this proposition to the precise point at issue, namely, that the Commissioners shall obtain information and shall consider the information supplied by the respective Boards. Therefore, I would venture to suggest in lieu of the words "in consultation with," we should say, "after consideration of any information furnished by," that is to say, instead of "consultation," which might, though I do not think it could properly be held, to imply some kind of control, that they should consider information provided by the Ministries. Very often there is, I will not say suspicion, but nervousness, about Government Departments, and perhaps it will shorten discussion if I suggest that alteration in the proposed Amendment.
Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "in consultation with" and insert instead thereof the words "after consideration of any information furnished by".—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I think this alteration is a very great improvement and that the right hon. Gentleman has been very wise to make this concession. Rightly or wrongly, there was an impression that in his Amendment there would be something in the nature of control by Government Departments. I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly sincere in saying that that was not the intention, and that as long as he was Minister be would not attempt to exercise such control. If the Clause had been passed as proposed there might have been some control in the future, whether it was intended or not. May I ask whether the purpose which he has in view is not already achieved by Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 which provides that the Commissioners may require any person who appears to them to have any
information to give it. I should have thought that amply covered all that was necessary.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think there is a very considerable difference between that Sub-section and this proposal. Under that Sub-section the Commissioners may ask for information and may take steps to obtain it, but under my Amendment there is a definite direction.

Sir F. BANBURY: I shall be very pleased to accept the Amendment, as amended, and I thank the right hon Gentleman.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (b).
I do not propose to go over all the arguments adduced in Committee against the retention of this paragraph, but I will merely say that in arriving at the datum line the variation of rent will be taken into account, and I venture to submit that it should be taken into account also in regard to the cost of production. In Committee the only argument the right hon. Gentleman used against this Amendment was that there might be collusion between the landlord and the tenant, but I hope that we shall have, some stronger argument against it than that, because, as was pointed out by the Secretary for Scotland in Committee, any such collusion would be an offence against Section 3 of the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN: My name stands on the Paper as one of those supporting this Amendment, but the House will see that there is another Amendment in my name below it: [At the end of paragraph (b), to add the words "except any variation that is attributable to a variation in the cost of maintenance."] I should, by rights, have withdrawn my name from supporting this Amendment when I put down the other, because my object in putting down the Amendment was to obtain consideration of the additional cost of maintenance which is thrown on the industry.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to second this Amendment?

Mr. PRETYMAN: No, Sir.

Mr. JAMES GARDINER: I beg to second the Amendment. There is considerable demand for land, and in many cases rent has increased 20s. or 30s. an acre and even more, and that means a difference of possibly 2s. to 5s. per quarter in the value of the grain, and I think it is only reasonable and fair therefore that rent should be taken into consideration.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I apologise for having risen before the Amendment was seconded. On the whole, I think it is undesirable that we should press for the Amendment, because I for one feel that it is very undesirable that the country should think that the cost of production is being raised merely because rents are raised, as rents, but it is no doubt now a very serious item and probably a large fraction of the rents which are now being received is necessitated by the increased cost of maintaining the estate, which is really a burden on the industry as a whole and is not, except so far as it is taken out of old rents, a burden on any individual. Of course, everybody will recognise that so far as rent covers that kind of expenditure it is very desirable that the responsible owner of any land should be in a position to carry out his obligations, because the whole industry suffers if the revenue which is received by an owner of land is so small that it is impossible for him to do his duty in maintaining the estate so that the occupier and the labourer may do their share also. It is from that point of view that the Amendment was originally put down, but I think on the whole it would be better that rent should not be included, and I would prefer to confine myself to the much more limited proposal that I have put lower down.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, because I think from a practical point of view it would impede the proper working of the Bill. All rents will be subject to arbitration in future, and, therefore, any risk there might be of excessive rents need not be met in this particular place. There is no chance of dealing with individual costings on individual farms. The cost of production has to be averaged over a wide area, and I think it would be far better to leave the Clause as it stands now and not complicate the question.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend states that there is no need to be afraid
of collusion between the tenant and the landlord to put the rent up, because in future it would have to be subject to arbitration. I understand my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) said that that was the only argument against this Amendment; that there might be collusion. My hon. Friend says that is impossible, and, therefore, under these circumstances I do not see any objection to the Amendment. There is no doubt that rent has a certain effect on the cost of production, but I think it is a small matter. I think myself that the idea that rent has a great deal to do with the cost of producing the crops on the land is a very exaggerated idea, and the amount which the rent bears in proportion to the cost is more or less infinitesimal. I think that is admitted by practically everybody who has had any experience. I do not see very much difference between this Amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), except that this is more distinct and clear, and, personally, I prefer calling a spade a spade. Whatever Bill we pass I am certain there will be certain people in the country going about making statements about it which are untrue, in order, perhaps, to gain a few votes. I am endeavouring to look at this from a national point of view, and not from a personal point of view, and, if I may say so, it is looking at the matter from the personal point of view that we-suffer from.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope the Minister in charge will see his way to accept either this Amendment or that of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), because I think there is no doubt that a certain kind of rent does enter into the cost of production. It is not the case of an individual farmer, but it is spread over a considerable area. The political economists will tell you that rent does not enter into prices, and that may be true as regards the pure rent of the land, but it is not true of the cost of equipping the farm, that is to say, the cost of capitalising a farm, which is so great and liable to such fluctuations at the present time that it has got to be taken into account as a whole, spreading it over a considerable area, if you are to get at a just estimate of what the cost of production is in any one year. It seems to me that the great changes that have taken
place in rents in the last two years are not changes so much in land values as in the cost of maintenance and repairs, of draining, and so forth, and it is essential, if a fair statement of the cost of production is to be laid down, that that should be taken into account.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I waited a few moments before rising to reply to this Amendment because I wished to gather, as far as I could, the views of hon. Members of the House, as I confess, on this point, I do not hold very strong views. It is quite true that as the Bill was introduced and as it stands we have laid down that in estimating variations in cost of production we should not take rent into account, and the theory underlying that was, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) has mentioned, that it might be said, or it might actually happen, that there would be collusion between tenant farmers and landlords raising rents because it was understood that the rise in rents would, pro tanto, so far as rent is an element in the cost of production, increase the guaranteed price. I cannot say I attach very much importance to that argument, because we are not dealing with the individual farm or the individual cost of production. What we are dealing with is the general rise in cost of production, and unless there were a sort of universal collusion between farmers and landlords generally, it is difficult to see how such a conspiracy could possibly be effective. At the same time, I think there is a danger that if there is a rise in rents—and there probably will have to be a rise in rents in consequence of the greatly increased cost of maintenance—and guaranteed prices do go up, there would be a suspicion that such collusion had taken place.
I think that is most undesirable. At all events, I think we ought to place it on a proper basis, that costs of production taken into account in respect of rent for the purpose of ascertaining guaranteed prices should be what are the bonâ fide increased costs of production, namely, the increased costs of the maintenace of the farm. Therefore, although I do not think the point is really an important one practically, my advice to the House is this, that we should maintain this paragraph but add to it the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in the
name of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), namely, to add at the end of the paragraph the words, "except any variation that is attributable to a variation in the cost of maintenance." I confess that at the time I could not see my way to meet it in Committee, but the greatly increased costs of maintenance which we all realise are a considerable element in the cost of production to-day, and as years go by that element may be increased. That being so, I think we really arrive at the just solution by not accepting this Amendment, but by adding to the paragraph the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford.
Amendment negatived.
Further Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (I, b) insert the words "except any variation that is attributable to a variation in the cost of maintenance."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major O'Neill:
In Sub-section (I, c) to insert the words
For the purpose of ascertaining the average price of wheat or oats, the weekly averages for any week shall be taken to be the average price per quarter of that week of wheat or oats, as the case may be, as ascertained in representative markets in England and Wales by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, in Scotland by ths Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and in Ireland by the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.

Mr. R. McNEILL: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill). Is that not in Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is passed over. As a matter of fact, if it is any satisfaction to the hon. Member to know, it is out of Order.

CLAUSE 3.—(Appointment, remuneration, and powers of Commissioners.)

(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be five Commissioners, one of whom shall be appointed by the Minister, one by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, one by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, one by the Treasury, and one by the Board of Trade.
(2) There shall be paid to the Commissioners such remuneration as the Treasury may determine, and any such remuneration
427
and the expenses of the Commissioners, up to an amount sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(3) The Commissioners may by order require the production of any books, papers, or other documents relating to the subject-matter of their inquiry, and may require any person who appears to them to have any information with respect thereto to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars with respect thereto as they may require, and to attend before them and give evidence on oath, and any of the Commissioners shall for that purpose have power to administer an oath
(4) The Commissioners may, subject to any directions given by the Treasury, pay to any person required by them to furnish particulars with respect to the subject-matter of their inquiry or to attend before them such reasonable expenses as such person shall incur in respect thereof.
(5) If any person fails to comply with any order of the Commissioners made under this Section, or knowingly furnishes any particulars which are false or misleading in any material particular, or knowingly gives any evidence which is false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one month.
(6) The Commissioners shall not, except with the consent of the person concerned, include in any report or publication made or authorised by them any information obtained by them in the course of an inquiry made by them under this Section as to the business carried on by any person which is not available otherwise than through evidence given to them during the inquiry, nor shall any Commissioner or any person concerned in the inquiry, except with such consent as aforesaid, disclose any such information.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
With regard to this important Amendment, I am going to ask the House to reverse a decision of the Committee. As the Bill was originally introduced, there were three Commissioners—one appointed by the three Ministries of Agriculture conjointly, which is what I propose to introduce now; one appointed by the Treasury, to safeguard the taxpayers' interests; and one appointed by the Board of Trade, to represent the consumers. These three Commissioners, after obtaining the necessary information, were, in each year, according to the terms of Clause 2, to ascertain the variation in the cost of production upon which the guaranteed prices were to be based. In
Committee an Amendment was moved and pressed very hard, especially by my Scottish and Irish Friends, to increase the number of Commissioners to five, putting in, instead of the one Commissioner appointed by the three bodies, one appointed by the Minister of Agriculture fo England and Wales, one by the Irish Department, and one by the Scottish Board, which would give five Commissioners, and three out of the five—a clear majority—would be representative of agricultural interests. I pointed out in Committee that I thought the proposal, which was carried against the Government by the very narrow majority of one vote, was based on a misunderstanding. These Commissioners are not to be advocates of particular interests. They are to be independent persons, ascertaining precisely what are the variations in the cost of production, and for that purpose it was really unnecessary that we should have an agricultural majority, and, in fact, it was undesirable.
We have got to consider, not merely the interest of agriculturists, which, I agree, are primarily the concern of the Ministry which I represent, and of the other agricultural Ministries, but also the interest of the taxpayer. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) is not present, because I am sure he would agree with me in this. Under Clause I very heavy responsibilities are placed upon the State. Guaranteed prices, which may involve the taxpayer in large sums of money, are to be paid, and the amount payable will depend upon the findings of these Commissioners. Therefore, to put upon the Commission a majority of persons interested in agriculture might have the effect of adversely affecting the taxpayer, and for those reasons I am bound to ask the House, in the interests of economy, and for the protection of the taxpayer, not to insist upon having five Commissioners, three of whom represent agricultural interests, but to revert to the original plan, which was carefully thought out before the introduction of the Bill, and by which all interests are adequately represented. I think the Amendment, which was carried in Committee against the Government by one vote, was carried largely because of what I may call the national interests of Members from Scotland and Ireland. They did not like the
idea of having one Commissioner appointed conjointly. Therefore, they pressed for a separate Commissioner for Scotland and a separate Commissioner for Ireland, and I know some of my Welsh Friends pressed also for another Commissioner to represent Welsh interests. By the Amendment, which was carried a few minutes ago, laying down that, before coming to a decision, the three Commissioners shall consider information provided by the three respective Ministries of Agriculture, I think we have gone some way to get over that difficulty. We have provided safeguards that Scottish and Irish interests shall not be left out of account.
Dealing with the Amendment on its merits, having regard to the large obligation placed upon the taxpayer, having regard to the fact that we may have to pay large sums in the way of guaranteed prices—the difference between guarantsed prices and market prices—I do not think it is right that there should be, out of five Commissioners, three definitely representing agricultural interests. Beyond that—though this is not such an important point, but, still, we all preach economy nowadays, and some of us try to carry it out, notwithstanding the fact that the House very often urges us to extravagant measures—really three people could quite well do this work. Five is an unnecessarily large number, and I really do not see why the taxpayer should be called upon to pay five Commissioners when three could quite properly do the work.

Mr. E. WOOD: I cannot help regretting that my right hon. Friend has offered the advice to the House that he has. He said that this had been very carefully considered in his office. He will no doubt recollect that it was no less carefully considered upstairs in Committee for a long time, with the result that the Bill now stands in the form it does. Now the ground on which I regret his decision to endeavour to reverse the judgment of the Committee on the point is that I am sure he would be the first to admit that, if this part of the Bill is to do any good in the direction of increasing food production, one thing before all else is necessary, and that is that it should carry some conviction and confidence into the minds of the farming community who are supposed to be influenced by it. For that purpose, obviously, a great deal depends upon the
judgment formed by the farming community of the Commissioners to whom this work is appointed. It is no good talking about an ideal world; we must take facts as they are. I do not think the farming community will be greatly impressed by a Board of Commissioners composed of members the majority of whom are not very likely to have a very wide acquaintance with agricultural conditions and agricultural problems. I refer to the Board of Trade and the Treasury. It was for that reason that a great many of us felt that it was of first importance to establish a body which would have that power of imparting confidence to the agricultural community.
My right hon. Friend says that that proposal is impossible for two reasons, the first being, as I understand it, that it would be almost quasi-unconstitutional to impart to a body which had an agricultural majority the right of overriding the impartial Treasury. On that I have a few observations to make. The first is this: I do not think anybody suggests—I am sure my right hon. Friend would not suggest—that if we have agricultural commissioners in the majority they will be acting there as partial deputies. They will be no less impartial than anybody else. The only difference between them and the representatives of the Board of Trade and Treasury will be that the agricultural representatives will have knowledge and the others will not. I venture to suggest it is rather confusing the issue to advance it as if it were impossible to have an agricultural majority without having a partial majority. The second observation I would make is this, that, however the Commission is composed, the Treasury and this House always retain their full and complete control over the whole question of guarantees. I would suggest, therefore, on that point that there is really no great cause for fear. The last argument of economy is one that appeals to me very strongly. I think it appeals to me because I have the good fortune to sit near my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), and no doubt he has infected me with some little enthusiasm. Indeed, I think it appeals to ordinary private independent members even more than it does to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. But I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is perfectly possible to have five commissioners of whom only three should
be paid. That would be in accordance with a good deal of precedent, and I am quite sure agricultural representatives on the Board of Agriculture or any other board would be only too anxious to do unpaid work in this respect for the benefit of the interest which it is their great honour and pride to serve. Therefore, I am quite sure it would not cost a penny more, and it would give confidence in the direction in which you wish to give confidence, and I am sure the Treasury would always retain, as they ought to retain, complete control over guarantees.

5.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will further consider the matter before he insists on using the Government majority in this House to reverse the decision of the Committee. I do say that it is of considerable importance, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) has already said, it is important on the ground of giving confidence to the agricultural community. I say further it is of importance on the ground, taken up in Committee, of giving confidence to Scottish interests. There is a certain feeling of regret amongst agricultural interests in Scotland, and we all know the reason that Scotland is not dealt with by a separate Bill. I think, therefore, that any small concession of this sort to Scottish agricultural feeling, and, I believe, Irish opinion, which would encourage them to have confidence in the working of the Act, would be well worth making. These commissioners are to fix prices which affect the whole root principle of the Bill and what is supposed to be giving great advantage to the agricultural industry, although we believe that the prices that are fixed will not really be of great benefit. Still, according to the great advocates of the Bill, it is giving advantage to the agricultural interest. Anything which gives confidence in the machinery, or gives any advantage of the sort to the agricultural interests, ought to be set up in the best possible manner to give that confidence. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture talked about the expense. I suggest that, even if the proposal of the hon. Member for Ripon that there should be two commissioners unpaid is not accepted, the expense will be infinitesimal. These commissioners need not be full-time employés. They need
only take up a very short time to decide this question, and the addition to these expenses would only equal, I should think, barely the cost of two extra messengers in the Ministry of Agriculture or at the Treasury. Perhaps they could reduce some of their staffs there to make up for this. Anyhow, it is a very small matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that these Commissioners are not to be advocates, but they are to be judges. We submit that judges must have some knowledge of their subject, and if they are to decide on agricultural matters, surely it is better that most of them should have some knowledge of agriculture upon which they have to decide. Surely, also, because they are interested in agriculture it does not debar them from being impartial. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not insist upon this Amendment. If he will not agree to the Bill standing as it left the Committee—and Scottish opinion is very strong upon this—perhaps he would consider some compromise, say, to have four Commissioners, one to be appointed jointly by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and one by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction of Ireland. This would have the effect of giving equal representation to the agricultural and other interests on the Board, and would give Scotland and Ireland together some small representation. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider this proposal.

Mr. W. COOTE: As representing an agricultural constituency I should like to approach the matter from the point of view of the last speaker. In Ireland we wish to make the greatest possible contribution to food production. We feel that if this is to be done—or continued—there must be confidence in the country in the machinery brought in by the Ministry of Agriculture. If now, after the Bill has passed through the Committee stages, the representative from Ireland is eliminated from the Bill, I am afraid it will have a very serious effect upon the confidence that ought to be engendered in Ireland for the working of this Bill.
There is another important item to be reckoned with in my country, and it is this: We have not now full representation from Ireland, and I plead that this House should consider this matter in a generous spirit, and leave the work of the Committee alone. I am speaking,
if I may say so, in the name of those not here, and not represented here—the great bulk of farmers in Ireland. I think it will be the wisest policy and in the interests of all concerned, if a commissioner is selected by the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, and one for Scotland—to leave the matter as it is. It may be said that there will be more expense. That is a mere bagatelle as compared with the good that will accrue, and the confidence that will be engendered in the minds of the agricultural people in Ireland who are suspicious about all these methods, and who will certainly be very greatly disappointed if we, here, do not give them representation on this Board, especially in view of the Committee's recommendation. This is the matter as it appears to me; and to those of us who come from Ireland. If you desire to retain the confidence of the agricultural people a commissioner should be left to represent the Department of Agriculture of Ireland.

Mr. LAMBERT: These Commissioners will have a very important function to perform. They will have to settle the prices of wheat and of oats, and it is upon the prices which they settle that the guarantee will be based. It is possibly the first time in our history that we have put such a proposal into an Act of Parliament, that Commissioners—whether three or five—I will argue this latter point in a moment—shall have the power of putting money into the pockets of an individual interest. For my part, I am not so sanguine that this system of guarantees is going to be of any permanent benefit to agriculture. I have tried to think the matter out with every desire to meet the views of the Government. Assuming, however, the Commissioners fixed such prices for wheat and oats that the Chancellor was called upon to pay the agricultural interests £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, there would be an outcry in the House at once. I do regard this system of guarantees as being, from my point of view, illusory to agriculture; and I am now speaking as an agriculturalist. But if the Government do attach importance to this system of guarantees for increasing the arable production of the country or the production of wheat and oats, if they attribute importance to this Clause, it is essential that these Commissioners should be men who will command the confidence of the
agricultural community. At the present moment the agricultural community is extremely suspicious of Government Departments and of Government activities.
We have had this past year an example how the Minister of Food, acting on his own responsibility, has fixed a lower price for wheat than is the common market price. Even to-day the price fixed by the Government official, that is the Food Controller, is 90s. per quarter for English wheat while American wheat of a similar quality is something like 120s. per quarter. The price here is fixed by the Government. No wonder, therefore, the agricultural community is suspicious of Government action in fixing these prices. More than that, it is due largely to this suspicion—I shall come to that later—that the acreage of wheat in this country has decreased so enormously in the last two years. The acreage of wheat has gone down to something like—if I say 600,000 acres I shall be fully within the mark. That is due to the fact that agriculturalists have not confidence that even wheat prices will be maintained, or that the Government guarantee will be effective to protect them against loss.
From the point of view of the Government, therefore, if their scheme is to be successful, it is essential that these Commissioners wielding such enormous power as they will wield should have the confidence of those who cultivate the land. Without that the whole Bill is useless—absolutely illusory! In his Amendment my right hon. Friend said that there will be one Commissioner appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, one by the President of the Board of Trade, and one by the Treasury. That is to say, two representatives of the consumer and the taxpayer as against one for the producer. If we want to give confidence to the producer you must give him a fair and equitable share of the representation on this Commission. You put producers in the position of one against two.
I say very respectfully to the Government I am not in love with this Bill—I want to make my position quite right as to that—but I say that if you are going to make this Bill a success it is essential that you should make the farmers of the country in love with it. You will not make the farmers of the country in love with it if you have Commissioners appointed, two by the Treasury and the
Board of Trade, and only one by the Minister of Agriculture. Again, there is another thing which occurs to me at the moment. These Commissioners will have an extremely difficult task to perform. It is not an easy matter to find out what is the cost of growing an acre of wheat or an acre of oats. It is a very difficult matter indeed. If you are going to get any mere Civil servant, however able, however brilliantly he may have passed his examinations at the university, he will not have the technical and practical knowledge to be able to estimate what is the cost of growing an acre of wheat or an acre of oats. I suggest, therefore, if the Government do insist upon their three Commissioners, that at any rate they should give the Ministry of Agriculture the appointment of two of these officials, and leave the other for the Treasury or the Board of Trade.
Personally, I should prefer the Bill as it is. The Committee upstairs made very reasonable Amendments in the Bill. Really, it is rather a strong order for the Government to act as they do after appointing a Committee upstairs and in view of the work the Committee have done. It was a very well-informed Committee. Members of the House were selected who understood agriculture. They listened to the arguments and they came deliberately to the conclusion that there should be five Commissioners. The Government come down now and say: "No, the Committee was wrong, and the Committee's decision must be upset: we propose to use our majority here in the House of Commons to upset the considered opinion of the Committee the members of which heard all the arguments." Is that fair? Is it fair to the agricultural community? After hearing all the arguments for and against, and the defence of the Minister of Agriculture, the Committee deliberately voted for these five Commissioners. Now the Government come down and say, "We will take no notice of that: we will go out into the precincts of the House and bring in, what I may call the 'Black and Tan' brigade and vote down the considered decision of the Committee." Is that fair? Do the Government expect the farming community to have confidence in the decision of the Government which serves that community in such a fashion? After having had the considered opinion of the
Agricultural Committee upstairs they come down and say, "We will not accept that decision and we insist upon our original proposal." I say to the Government that if they want to win the confidence of the agricultural community, and without that they will not get any increased cultivation of wheat or oats, they must show more consideration for those who cultivate the land.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the House ought to clearly understand whore we are. This is either a matter of great importance or of much less importance than it seems. There are three points which seem to me to contain the whole heart of the matter. One of them is that these Commissioners are to be representative. Another is that they are to fix prices. The third point is that they are to ascertain the cost of production. If either of those three readings of the terms of this Clause are correct then the matter is very serious. As I read the Bill these Commissioners are not to be representative at all, and they have not got to ascertain the cost of growing wheat or fix the price of wheat when it is grown. If that is so, then the matter comes into quite a different category.
These Commissioners have really only actuarial duties. They are to be appointed by certain Government Departments, and I really do not think it matters which Departments appoint them because they will be appointed by the Government as a whole under the jurisdiction of the Cabinet as three men independent and competent to carry out this actuarial work, and therefore I do not think they ought to be of a representative character at all. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me an assurance that they will not be representative. If they are to represent this or that interest it will be most injurious to agriculture. If they have to fix prices every word said by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lambert) would be justified, but as I read the Bill they have not got to fix prices. All they have to do is to ascertain what is the variation in the cost of production in future years, and having ascertained that they have merely to ascertain a question of fact. When they have ascertained whether the cost of production has altered then automatically the wheat and oat prices will follow those variations, and they have
no jurisdicion to fix prices but simply to follow certain variations in cost of production, tabulate them, and the prices will follow.

Mr. LAMBERT: When the Commissioners have followed out those variations and come to their conclusions that will be the fixed price.

Mr. PRETYMAN: That will be automatic, and their duties will be purely actuarial. They have to follow certain definite facts. The third point is that it is impossible for anybody to attempt to ascertain the actual cost for growing any crop because they cannot do it. As I read the Bill they have not got to do that. The Government have got round that difficulty by fixing a basic line. I agree that line is wrong, but I cannot discuss it here, or I could give strong reasons why the basis is inadequate. Taking the point we are discussing, there is a basic figure, and it is given to the Commissioners as a base from which they have to start. They have not to ascertain the cost of growing wheat and oats now or in future years. They have to ascertain what has been the increase or decrease in any of the items of the general cost of production on agricultural land from the basic year, and when they have ascertained that the information will be tabulated, and those variations will be the base upon which prices will automatically alter.
As I read this measure, that is the procedure of the Bill, and if I am assured that that is so, it seems to me that the actual powers given to the Commissioners are extremely limited. The Commissioners have not to be so much interested in agriculture or have a high knowledge of the details of agricultural operations as possessing high actuarial qualifications and able to understand and follow the evidence put before them by experts. A man of good general knowledge and judgment who is not an expert in my opinion is a better judge of the value of expert opinion put before him than the expert himself. Therefore if these three men are selected from that point of view I think it would be very unfortunate that it should go forth as the opinion of this House that we are suspicious of the bona fides of these people who are going to be appointed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if I have given a correct interpretation of the actual in-
tentions of the Bill and the intentions of the Government, and if that is so I think it narrows the issue very much. I do not think it is important whether you have five or three Commissioners to carry out these actuarial duties, and we need not be very much afraid as to which Department appoints them. I would like an assurance on the points which I have raised.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for what he has said, and I think he has rightly appreciated the terms upon which the Commissioners are appointed. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 2 of the Bill they will see exactly what the Commissioners have to ascertain is the percentage of variation or ratio which at a particular time certain matters—cost of production, and so on—bear to the previous standard which is ascertained. When that ratio or standard has been ascertained, by an automatic operation, the actual minimum price rises or falls, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) is quite right in his understanding of the terms of the Bill and in his definition of the powers of the Commissioners.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: They have nothing to do with the cost of production.

Sir E. POLLOCK: My hon. and gallant Friend will see that they have to ascertain the percentage by which the cost of production is greater or less. Let me reply to the discussion by giving some information. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert) asked the House to hesitate before any alteration should be made upon what he called the deliberate decision of experts on the Committee who had carefully considered this matter upstairs. May I point out that the actual numbers voting upstairs on this question were 15 on one side and 14 on the other, making a total of 29. I believe the total number of the Members of the Committee was 70, and this was a Division in which there was a very even balance of opinion amongst the Members of the Committee, a number which did not form half of the total number of the Members of the Committee.
It has been pointed out that it is of great importance that these Commissioners and their ratio or standard should
carry with it the confidence of the agricultural community, and that is quite right. No doubt their deliberations will have effect upon the guaranteed prices by the system of a ratio and standard. It must, however, be remembered that this is not merely a question of obtaining the confidence of the farming community in regard to guaranteed prices. Who will have to pay the guaranteed prices? The right hon. Gentleman said that owing to the guarantee that has been given the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to come down to the House and ask for a considerable sum to meet the guarantee. I cannot help feeling that the position of those who have the best interests of agriculture at heart would be strengthened if they were able to say then that this ratio had been determined by a body representing agriculture which was not in a great majority, and that the community at large had not been unrepresented in the determination of such an important factor. It might possibly be said by hon. Members here when a demand such as that adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman for money to fulfil the guarantee was made, that the circumstances under which the guarantee was given, and the money had to be found were such as did not carry the confidence of the community as a whole, and criticism might be made that too much power had been given to the agricultural community and too little to the community as a whole.
When we are thinking of the best interests of agriculture we must not think of the agricultural side alone. If these guaranteed prices are to remain, if they are valuable, and are to find a permanent place in our system, then they must be based on a system against which no suspicion can be attached. From the point of view of the community as a whole, if you have three Commissioners representing agriculture out of five, it might be said that you are giving too large a representation to those who are to receive the prices and too small a representation to those who have to pay them. I cannot help feeling that for these reasons, in the best interests of agriculture itself, it is not wise to press what has been called a want of confidence in the farming community when it might cause a certain amount of doubt on the
part of other portions of the community. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has pointed out exactly how this system will operate, and I hope the House will see that, in ascertaining this ratio, it is of great importance, not merely that agriculture should be represented, but that all those who are interested should also be adequately represented. For that purpose it is not wise, in the interests of agriculture, that the Commissioners should consist of persons who are authorised to speak on behalf of one section of the community, and one section alone.

Mr. ACLAND: This Debate has dealt, with what is really a rather difficult point. One can understand the feeling of sentiment or something stronger than sentiment which moves hon. Members representing Scotland and Ireland to claim to be definitely represented by these Commissioners. But I would ask those who are in favour of the guarantees not to overdo it. They will get their Bill, they have very much strengthened the position of the guarantees by Amendments made in Committee and on this stage. My agreement with the guarantees depends upon what I get back on Clause 4, and it remains to be seen what view the House will take on the Amendment which the Government are going to move then. But speaking from the point of view of those who want to have the guarantees firmly established, I cannot help thinking it is very possible to overdo the letter of the law while failing in the spirit. It is perfectly right to talk about the confidence of the agricultural community, but there is a much larger entity that should have confidence in this Bill, and that is the general public. I believe one of these guarantees is not at all unlikely to materialise, in the course of the next few years. It may not do so in the case of wheat, but later on the nation may be called upon to pay several millions in respect of oats, and undoubtedly the general public will not like that. The public will not like to learn, as they then will for the first time, that a certain price was arrived at by five gentlemen, three of whom they will consider were interested parties. Personally, I do not think it matters at all about the number if the selection is made wisely. The gentlemen appointed will, I presume, be
people accustomed to weigh evidence, and will have some experience in the amount of truth in the statements made by farmers with regard to the cost of production—which is not always 100 per cent. They will be persons of general judgment who will not act as advocates either for or against the farmers. I therefore say it matters not whether there are five, or three or only one of them. I would trust the work to one person appointed by the Government just as readily as I would to three or five.
But a tendency has arisen lately to regard members of Committees as advocates of the particular side which may have suggested their appointment. That is a very bad tendency. When we appointed the Coal Commission people were put on it whose opinions were absolutely known from the beginning, and it was perfectly certain that they would present all sorts of different Reports. There is a tendency on the part of everybody interested with a question to ask who is to be our advocate on the Committee, instead of maintaining the old idea that a Committee should consist of half a dozen unbiassed people able to form a fair judgment, not prejudiced one way or the other, and prepared to do their best with such brains as they were gifted with to arrive at a fair judgment. When the general public discover that, on this Committee of five, three represent Departments of Agriculture, they will be much more angry at having to pay the bill than they would be if the Committee consisted of three representatives, one of the Board of Agriculture, another of the Board of Trade, and a third of the Treasury. I believe the Government would be well advised in making it quite certain when the guarantees materialise, that there shall be no suspicion at all that the representatives of the Board of Trade and of the Treasury have been outvoted by representatives of Agriculture. I therefore urge the House to follow the advice of the Government in this matter.

Major O'NEILL: I thought the Solicitor-General made rather light of the criticism of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) to the effect that the Government were coming down on this Report stage of the Bill with the deliberate intention and set purpose of reversing very carefully considered Amendments introduced in the Standing
Committee upstairs. He pointed out that in the Division to which attention has been called only 29 Members took part, although there were 70 Members of the Committee. But hon. Members who are in the habit of sitting on Standing Committees know very well that 29 is an unusually large proportion to be in attendance. As a rule on these Standing Committees it is a matter of extreme difficulty to get a quorum at all, and when you have 29 Members, the great majority of whom are intimate with agriculture, and with the questions which this Bill deals with, I do not think it is open to the Solicitor-General to throw scorn upon the paucity of the majority by which the Amendment was carried. If one multiplies the majority of one by a requisite number proportionate to the whole of this House it will be found to be a majority sufficient in the old days to cause a Government to resign. The last two or three speeches have thrown a rather different complexion, and an unexpected one, on this matter. We have been told that this is not a question really of great importance; that these gentlemen are only going to be chartered accountants, and that all they will have to do will be to find a ratio, which anybody with experience of figures can do. Whether that be true or not, I cannot say, but it is not the opinion of the bulk of agriculturists throughout the country. This is a matter which is exercising their minds to a very great extent. Look at what the Commissioners have to do. They are to ascertain the percentage by which the cost of production of wheat and oats raised in a particular year is greater or less than the cost of production in the standard year. We are told that they are not to determine the cost of production, although that is a prime factor. I would like to ask who is to determine the cost of production, if these Commissioners are not to. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to give a definite answer to that question. This is a matter which requires agricultural knowledge and agricultural experience. If these Commissioners have merely to act as chartered accountants, why is it that the Government in their Amendment yesterday laid it down that they should take the advice of the Boards of Agriculture for England and Scotland?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Not the advice.

Major O'NEILL: Well, at any rate they are to get certain information from those Boards. If they are purely chartered accountants, having nothing to do with agriculture, I cannot see why it should be necessary for them to obtain that information. I cannot accept that view at all. Whatever may be the intention, it will be found that, when these gentlemen come to perform their duties, they will straight away find themselves up against many problems which have a purely agricultural complexion and interest. It is, therefore, important that they should be appointed as proposed under the Bill as it stands, not only by Government Departments, but by the Agricultural Ministries of the three countries forming the United Kingdom, because conditions are different in each country. The conditions in Ireland are very different in many respects, particularly with regard to agriculture, to what they are in this country, and proof of that is to be found in the fact that, when the Royal Commission on Agriculture was appointed this year, no representative from Ireland was placed upon it, for the reason that the Government stated, that the conditions of tenure in Ireland were so different that it could not be possible that the views of an Irish representative would be of any use to the Agriculural Commission.
There is another matter which very closely affects Ireland and Scotland, and with regard to which Commissioners appointed by the Irish and the Scottish Offices might be able very greatly to help the deliberations of the Commission, and that is with regard to the question of average prices—a very vital one. The conditions in Scotland and in Ireland are different—very different. In most of the markets in Ireland and in Scotland, the average prices of wheat and oats are considerably lower than those in this country, and a position might arise in which if the Commissioners had no local knowledge, the farmer who produced and sold wheat and oats in Ireland would be receiving a less price than the average price under this Bill, simply because the lower prices obtained in the Irish markets were not taken into account by those who had to settle the average price. I know that farmers in Ireland entertain a very strong feeling on this matter. They consider that if this Amendment of the Government is carried, the Bill will be
of less use to them. I want once again to protest that in a matter of this importance the Government should have again, as they have done on previous occasions, decided to reverse the considered opinion of the Standing Committee, and I shall certainly, on behalf of those for whom I speak, oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I must preface my remarks by joining with other hon. Members in entering a vigorous protest against the speech of the Solicitor-General. I have been a Member of this House for a considerable number of years, and I never yet heard from any Minister of the Crown arguments such as were adduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman to-day, when he asked the House to reverse the decision to which the Committee had come. I venture to say that that is an aspersion on the House. The Committee was set up by the House, and, after the most careful deliberation, it came to a decision. Now the Solicitor-General comes down and asks the House to reverse that decision, because only a small portion of the Committee were present when it was taken. The fact that the Government were defeated in Committee shows that they were unable to substantiate the arguments which they adduced in favour of the Amendment which they have placed before the House to-day. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has merely resulted in lifting the Minister in charge of the Bill out of the frying-pan in the fire. Either these Commissioners are gentlemen who ought to have technical knowledge and to be able to ascertain the cost of production, as stated in Sub-section (1, a), or they should be chartered accountants, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford. If they are to have no technical knowledge, why have a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture at all? I venture to suggest—and no reason has been given to the contrary—that, as was submitted by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major O'Neill), it is essential that they should have some technical knowledge, and that they should not merely be judges, as was suggested by the Secretary for Scotland when he spoke on this matter during the Committee stage he said:
Something has been said to the effect that these members of the Committee, if they were agriculturists, might be advocates, and something has been said to the effect that they might, or would, be experts. My view rather is that they will be neither, but judges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee), 23 June, 1920, col. 86.]
I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, when he replies, will inform the House by whom and by what methods the cost of production will be ascertained. That is a question which has not been answered. If in any sense the cost of production is to be ascertained by the Commissioners, then, quite clearly, gentlemen with some technical knowledge should be appointed. If that is so, the Commissioners appointed ought to be gentlemen not necessarily representing Scotland, England, and Ireland, but gentlemen who, by reason of their appointment as Commissioners, will give to the farming community in those various countries the confidence which is essential to the success of this Bill. The Secretary for Scotland in Committee, referring to the difficulties of appointing these Commissioners, said:
It would be very difficult to appoint two Commissioners who would be satisfactory to the three countries. You would have to leave out one of the countries, and appoint an Englishman and a Scotsman and leave out the Irishman, or—which would be worse still—appoint an Englishman and an Irishman and leave out the Scot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee), 23rd June, 1920, col. 87.)

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: They always leave out England.

Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: As the Secretary for Scotland well knows, there is an insistent demand in Scotland from the bulk of the farming community that one of these Commissioners should be a Scotsman and appointed as such. It would not be in order for me to move at this stage to reduce the three Commissioners to two, but should the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not necessary to have someone with technical knowledge as one of the Commissioners, I venture to suggest that only two are necessary. I believe that the Government would argue, against the appointment of five, that it would cost more, but, if it is not necessary to have a gentleman with expert knowledge, let them reduce the expense by removing the gentleman representing the Ministry of Agriculture, and let there be only two Commissioners instead of five. At any
rate, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer the specific question put by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major O'Neill), as to who will ascertain the cost of production and by what methods it will be done.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down has put so pointedly the Scottish aspect of the case, as he sees it, that I feel bound to reply to his speech in a very few words. I have had the duty of considering, and considering carefully and repeatedly, the arguments which he has propounded, and of considering whether or no it is desirable to have a separate Commissioner representing Scotland. I considered that view all the more carefully because I knew that it was held very strongly by a number of my Scottish colleagues, and also by some of the Scottish farming societies, for which I have the highest regard. In the result, I have come to the conclusion that the proposal which was originally in the Bill, and which we are now asking the House to reinstate in the Bill, is the best proposal to meet the situation with which we are confronted. It is a question, I venture to think, which ought to be considered not merely from the national point of view, and still less from the sentimental point of view, but from a severely practical point of view.
That leads one to inquire, what in point of fact are the duties which these Commissioners, when appointed, will have to perform. In my view the duties are difficult, and they are important. It is needless to minimise them or to exaggerate them. As to their nature, the House has only to look at the Bill, and in particular at Clause 2, to find that the Commissioners have to direct their attention to the ascertainment of a question of fact. They are provided with the cost of production in a standard year. They are then directed to inquire into the cost of production in the year under survey, and, on the comparison of those, to reach a certain percentage of which they are in search, whereupon the price automatically follows their ascertainment of that percentage. The inquiry is then an inquiry into a pure question of fact, and when it is said that for that inquiry technical knowledge is absolutely necessary, I venture very respectfully to demur. It is an inquiry which should be conducted, needless to say, in a purely judicial
spirit—not, as has been said, from the point of view of an advocate, but from the point of view of a judge. I adhere to everything that I said in Committee, and in particular to the passage which my hon. and gallant Friend quoted.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Do they actually themselves ascertain the cost of production in that year?

Mr. MUNRO: I have endeavoured to make that clear. They have to ascertain the variation in the cost of production between the year under survey and the standard year, and, in order to arrive at that variation, they of course have to inquire into the cost of production in the year under survey.

Major M. WOOD: Do they hear evidence?

Mr. MUNRO: It is an investigation into a pure question of fact. Some of my hon. Friends have said that technical knowledge is required, but do they not forget, in saying that, that judges of the High Court in England, and judges of the Court of Session in Scotland, are repeatedly called upon, in many instances without any technical knowledge whatever, to decide the most important agricultural questions upon the evidence adduced before them? That is just the sort of inquiry which these gentlemen will have to make. They will have evidence adduced before them from each of the three countries, they will have to weigh that evidence, and they will have to reach a conclusion upon it. Why they should be disabled from reaching a sound conclusion on evidence which may be given by experts, merely because they themselves may not be, equipped with full technical knowledge, I, for one, am quite unable to understand. If you get the right persons—and I could name, although I am not going to do so, several persons who, if they were appointed, would to my knowledge command the complete confidence of the agricultural community in England, Scotland and Ireland—if you get the right men, I do not in the least see the necessity for having separate representatives for England, Scotland and Ireland. If you have the consumer, the taxpayer and the producer each represented on that Commission, each contributing the knowledge and experience which he possesses, I think the House
may rest assured that the result reached would be satisfactory, not merely to one class of the community, but to all classes, who would feel that they were fairly represented upon the tribunal. It has been suggested that the number of Commissioners might be four or might be two, but I suggest that those are not suitable proposals, if for no other reason than that the voting might be equal, which might lead to complications, delay and even deadlock. I venture to think that the number originally suggested is the proper one, and, if the House will permit me one final word, I would respectfully suggest that, as we have had a very long discussion upon what, I quite agree, is a most important question, it may be possible now to reach a conclusion.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. CAUTLEY: It is most important that we should thoroughly understand the duties which these gentlemen have to perform, and I should not have risen except that I think I can make them clear to the House. I have no doubt, from the text of the Bill, that these gentlemen have themselves to fix the minimum pricos, and that they have themselves to investigate the cost of production. I would refer the House to Sub-section (1, c) of Clause 2, which says:
The corresponding minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of any year shall be such sums as are certified by the Commissioners,
and so on. The Commissioners themselves have to certify the minimum prices, and in order to do that they have to fix them. I think that point is perfectly clear. What is the other question with which they have to deal? It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) pointed out, that in order to arrive at those prices they have to find the percentages of increase. I venture to tell the House and I shall be glad to be contradicted, that you cannot ascertain the percentage of increase, where the amount which you are investigating is one fixed sum consisting of a number of items, unless you know what those items are. I was a member of the Commission and we spent days and days trying to ascertain the cost of production of a quarter of wheat. I found, in applying such brain power as I have, that the problem was insoluble. Half the Commission could not arrive at a conclusion. The other half fixed the sum at 68s.; but they carefully
refrained, though invited to do so, from fixing what items were represented in it or what proportion was represented by those particular items. To make that plain let us take a particular illustration. How much in this 68s. is represented by rates? Nowhere does it appear in the Bill. We are told in the Bill that the Commissioners are to take into account any variation in the amount of rates. How are they to proceed to do that until they have ascertained what proportion of the 68s. represents rates? Let us take another illustration. It is easy enough to ascertain, between the years 1918 and 1921, the increase in the average cost of the minimum wage of the agricultural worker, and you may roughly take that as proportionate to the increase in the cost of wages, but in applying that percentage what is to be applied to in the 68s.? How much of the 68s. is to represent wages to which that increase is to be applied? The Commissioners cannot perform this duty until they have apportioned the 68s. between the various items it includes. How much is represented by artificial manure and how much by the expense of machinery?
It is mainly on these grounds of the impossibility of performance of the task that is set to these gentlemen that I object to the principle the Government have adopted. However, this is the problem these Commissioners have to work out. I have not the slightest hesitation in asserting that is means that they have not only to investigate the cost of production in the year 1921, but in order to arrive at that, to ascertain the cost of production making up the 68s. and settling the relative parts into which it is divided. That being the problem, it was of tho most vital importance—and I am glad the Minister conceded that—that the Commissioners should remain absolutely independent of the Government Department, and the only question now before the House, as I understand it, is whether there shall be three representing the English, the Scotch and the Irish Boards of Agriculture, one representing the Treasury and one the Board of Trade, or whether we shall only have one from the three Ministries combined. I reduce it in my own view to a pure question of national feeling, because the functions they have to perform are judicial. Technical knowledge is undoubtedly required, but that, it seems to me, will be
supplied by one representative. If a Scotsman is appointed, of course the Scotch case will be represented. If he is an Englishman, the Scotch and the Irish case, it seems to me, will no doubt be put before them forcibly by witnesses called from Scotland and Ireland. But I was impressed by the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) that in the interests of the agricultural community if this guarantee was ever to be paid to the farmer, of which I have some doubt, it is much to the interest of the farmer and the agricultural community that the fixing of the prices shall be more or less independent of the agricultural people; that is to say that the State representatives shall be in a majority rather than that the agricultural representatives should be in the majority. Taking the long view, I feel perfectly sure that that is the permanent interest of the agricultural industry, and for the reasons I have given, though for very different reasons from those given by the Solicitor-General, I think the proposal of the Ministry is good.

Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: I am going to support the three instead of the five. I belive three will be a better business Committee than five can be, and I think they will do their work better. There is another reason why I support three. During August and September I sat on a Committee that inquired into the growth of the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, and during those six weeks, while other people were enjoying themselves, we found out that the Ministry of Agriculture had increased in the period from 1914 to 1920 by no fewer than 2,000 new individuals. This increase of 2,000 had been worked up by Acts which had been passed by this House creating new work and creating new offices, such as we are about to do at this very moment. The consequence was that a very large sum of money, indeed, is now being paid to these people which we had no idea we were countenancing, and that explains the growth. We are all asking for economy. Here is a chance of not only giving economy but also of giving better work and a better way of utilising the information that we require.
I think that we are putting the cart before the horse a great deal. These Commissioners, we are told, have to work
on a ratio or percentage. If they have to work on a ratio or percentage there must be some basis. We have never been told, that I know of, what that basis is on which these Commissioners are to work. We are told it is a date in the year 1919. The Secretary for Scotland told us just now that these Commissioners would be provided with the cost in that standard year, 1919. Why is it that we have not been given it in this House so that we could have the information as to whether that is a proper standard year or what are the sort of gentlemen who will be required to work out the percentage in order to arrive at the price for that particular year. I think it is the most unbusinesslike thing that the Government could possibly have done in stating that the Commissioners would be provided with the cost in the standard year and we know nothing at all about what it is to be. Another thing we have not been told is the period that was taken

in order to arrive at the figure of this standard profit. It must have been extended over a period. What was that period? We have not any idea, and we are creating an organisation, we are creating Commissioners who will require large sums of money and we are giving them a blank cheque as to what they are going to do, and I think before we go any further we ought to have this information, and if the Secretary for Scotland knows it—and I suppose he does know it, or he would not have made the statement he made just now—he ought forthwith to inform the House so that we know exactly what we are doing. Although I approve of the three rather than the five, I hope we shall be given an answer as to what the cost is of the standard year on which these Commissioners will work.

Question put, "That the word "five" stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 267.

Division No. 348.]
AYES.
[6. 15 p.m.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Ford. Patrick Johnston
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Reid, D. D.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Gretton, Colonel John
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hambro, Captain Anqus Valdemar
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Scott. Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)
Starkey, Captain John R.


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hotchkin. Captain Stafford Vere
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kidd, James
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Whitla, Sir William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lynn, R. J.
Willoughby, Lieut-Col. Hon. Claud


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
M'Micking. Major Gilbert
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)



Donald, Thompson
Moles, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elveden, Viscount
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Lieut-Colonel A. Murray and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir J. Hope.



NOES.



Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Coats, Sir Stuart


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bridgeman, William Clive
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Briggs, Harold
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bromfield, William
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brown, Captain D. C.
Courthope, Major George L.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)


Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City of Lon.)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Butcher, Sir John George
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Barnston, Major Harry
Cairns, John
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)


Barrie, Rt Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry,N.)
Campion. Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Carr, W. Theodore
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Edge, Captain William


Benn, Capt. Sir I. P., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Casey, T. W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Cautley, Henry S.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)


Bigland, Alfred
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Entwistle, Major C. F.


Blair, Reginald
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Fell, Sir Arthur


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Finney, Samuel


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Foreman, Henry
Lorden, John William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Forrest, Walter
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Simm, M. T.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sitch, Charles H.


Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
Lunn, William
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Spencer, George A.


Gardiner, James
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Spoor, B. G.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stanton, Charles B.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Glimour, Lieut-Colonel John
Mason, Robert
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Glanville, Harold James
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Stevens, Marshall


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mitchell, William Lane
Stewart, Gershom


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Sturrock, J. Leng


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Sugden, W. H.


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Morrison, Hugh
Sutherland, Sir William


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gregory, Holman
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Greig, Colonel James William
Myers, Thomas
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Nall, Major Joseph
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Neal, Arthur
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hallwood, Augustine
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tickler, Thomas George


Hallas, Eldred
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Tillett, Benjamin


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Tootill, Robert


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Tryon, Major George Clement


Haslam, Lewis
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Turton, E. R.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Parker, James
Waddington, R.


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Waiton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parry, Lieut-Colonel Thomas Henry
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pearce, Sir William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Waterson, A. E.


Hinds, John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hogge, James Myles
Percy, Charles
Weston, Colonel John W.


Holmes, J. Stanley
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pinkham, Lieut-Colonel Charles
Wignall, James


Howard, Major S. G.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pratt, John William
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hurd, Percy A.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hurst, Lieut-Colonel Gerald B.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Iaskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pulley, Charles Thoraton
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Irving, Dan
Purchase, H. G.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Jackson, Lieut-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rae, H. Norman
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Jesson, C.
Rendall, Athelstan
Wilson, Lt-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Renwick, George
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Robertson, John
Winterton, Major Earl


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wintringham, T.


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Rodger, A. K.
Wise, Frederick


Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander J. M.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Woolcock, William James U.


Kenyon, Barnet
Royce, William Stapleton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Lloyd, George Butler
Seager, Sir William



Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

Proposed word there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1) leave out the words
one by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, one by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
and insert instead thereof the words
the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland jointly."—[Sir A. Boscowen.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s.9 of Corn Production Act, 1917.)

Section nine of the Act of 1917 shall be amended as follows:—

(i) After the word "opinion," in Subsection (1), there shall be inserted the words "after consultation with the agricultural committee for the area in which the land is situate":
(ii) For the words in Sub-section (1) from "(b) that for the purpose of" to "as the case may be," both inclusive, there shall be substituted the words—
455
"(b) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute the necessary repairs (not being repairs which the tenant is liable to execute) to any buildings on the land being repairs required for the proper cultivation or working thereof,

may serve notice, in the case of neglect by an owner to execute repairs, on the owner requiring him to execute the necessary repairs within such time as may be specified in the notice, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry or for securing such improvement or change as aforesaid in the manner of cultivating or using the land, as the case may be":

(iii) For the words in the proviso to Subsection (1) "or whether it is undesir"able in the interest of food produc"tion that the change should apply "to any portion of land included in "the notice" there shall be substituted the words "or whether the pro"duction of food on the land can be "increased in the national interest by "the occupier by means of such an "improvement or change as aforesaid "or whether the repairs required to be "executed are necessary for the "proper cultivation or working of the "land, or whether the time specified "in the notice for the execution of "such repairs is reasonable":
(iv) The following new Sub-sections shall be inserted after Sub-section (2):—
"(2A) Where a notice other than a notice under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this Section has been served under this Section on the occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute some work in connection with the cultivation of the land and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further penalty not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues after conviction:

Provided that—

(a) proceedings for an offence under this Sub-section shall not be instituted except by the Minister; and
(b) the Minister shall be entitled, notwithstanding that proceedings have been instituted under this Sub-section, to execute any work specified in the notice, and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default any expenses reasonably incurred by him in so doing, and the right to institute any such pro
456
ceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice":

"(2B) Where a notice has been served under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this Section on the owner of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute repairs and the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the repairs, and a tenant so authorised shall be entitled to execute the repairs accordingly and at any time after the repairs have been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in so doing, in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were compensation awarded in respect of an improvement under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908":

(v) For the words in Sub-section (3) "make such order as seems to them "required in the circumstances, "either authorising the landlord to "determine the tenancy of the hold"ing, or determining the tenancy by "virtue of the order" there shall be substituted the words "by order deter"mine the tenancy of the hojding or "of any part thereof":
(vi) The following new Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (3):—
"(3A) Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate or land situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate or land or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, cultivates or manages the estate or land in such a manner as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon, the Minister may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and after making such inquiry as he thinks proper and after taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner, by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land or any part thereof:

Provided that—

(a) an order made under this Sub-section shall not, except where the person appointed by the order to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land is appointed to act in the place of a person previously appointed under this Sub-section, take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the order having been made was given to the owner of the estate or land, and the owner may at any time during the said period appeal against the order to the High Court in accordance
457
with rules of court, and where any such appeal is made the order shall not take effect pending the determination of the appeal; and
(b) an order made under this Sub-section shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, garden, or policies thereof, or to any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and which is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; and
(c) the older shall not operate to deprive any person, except with his consent, of any sporting rights over the estate which do not interfere with the production of food on the estate; and
(d) any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any agricultural estate or land under this Section shall render a yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister;
(e) the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers conferred on the Minister under this Section:

The Minister may by an order made under this Provision apply for the purposes of the order, with such modifications as he thinks fit, any of the Provisions of Section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relates to the powers, remuneration and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees, and authorise the receiver to exercise such other powers vested in the owner of the estate or land as may be specified in the order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager:

Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court":

(vii) In Sub-section (4) for the words "if "within three months after the Board "have entered on any land the per"son who was in occupation of the "land at the time of the entry so "requires" there shall be substituted the words "if within one month after "the Minister has entered on or "appointed a receiver and manager "in respect of any land the owner "of the land so requires"; and for "the words "person so previously in "occupation" there shall be substituted the word "owner":
458
(viii) In Sub-section (9) the words "in "respect of which any notice is served "or order made under this Section "or" shall be repealed, and after the word "Section," where that word last occurs, there shall be inserted the words "in that behalf":
(ix) The following new Sub-sections shall be inserted after Sub-section (10):—
"(11) For the purposes of this Section the rules of good husbandry shall include—

(a) the maintenance and clearing of drains, dykes, embankments, and ditches:
(b) the maintenance and proper repair of fences, gates and hedges:
(c) the execution of repairs to buildings, being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land, and, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, are required to be executed by the occupier of the land under the contract of tenancy:

and references in this Section to cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall be taken to impose upon a tenant the obligation to maintain or clear drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches where such maintenance of clearance is prevented by subsidence of the land or the blocking of the out-falls which are not under the control of the tenant, or to make a tenant liable for such maintenance or clearance of drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches, or the maintenance or repair of fences, hedges, and gates, where such work is not required to be done by him under his contract of tenancy or the custom of the country."

"(12) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Sub-section applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice, and where any such notice is given the provisions of Sub-section (2A) of this Section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply us if the land were land which was not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, and as if a notice had been served on the occupier under Subsection (1) of this Section.

"The expression 'occupier' in this Sub-section means in the case of any public road the authority by whom the road is being maintained, and in the case of unoccupied land the person entitled to the occupation thereof.

"Regulations may be made under this Act for prescribing the injurious weeds to which this Sub-section is to apply."

Amendment made: In Sub-section (i), after the word "Committee," insert the words "(if any)."—[Sir A. Boscowen].

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out paragraphs (ii) and (iii).

Captain FITZROY: On a point of Order. I understand that my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) is going to move an Amendment to omit paragraphs (ii) and (iii). These include most of the principles of this Clause, and while there are many Members anxious to defeat the whole of the Clause, there are some of us who do not hold that view, and if there is going to be a general discussion on the omission of paragraphs (ii) and (iii), I hope that will not preclude a general discussion on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Sir A. Boscawen) in his Amendment to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert three new paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not propose to allude to the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretnry.

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members follow the example of the right hon. Baronet, no difficulty will arise.

Sir F. BANBURY: These paragraphs deal with obligations which are to be imposed upon the owner of the land. The two paragraphs (ii) and (iii) in view of their great importance are very badly drafted, and they can only be understood if you have in your hand a copy of the Corn Production Act of 1917. They are extremely bad examples of legislation by reference. No one who has not made a careful study of the Bill will know what is meant in paragraph (1) by the words
after consultation with the Agricultural Committee for the area in which the land is situate.
It is essential for my argument that the Committee should understand what that particular paragraph means. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, says:
The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, if in any case they are of opinion—

(a) that any land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry"

may do certain things.
We have amended it so that it will read:
The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries if in any case they are of opinion, after consultation with the Agricultural Committee for the area in which the land is situate, that any land is not being cultivated according to the good rules of husbandry, etc.,
may do certain things. That is all that is necessary for the House to pass. It is not necessary to give the Minister any further powers than those which have already been given to him under the Subsection which we have just passed. That paragraph confers extraordinary powers upon the Minister. It enables him to come in and interfere with the cultivation of the land. It is quite true that under the Corn Production Act, 1917, which is to a certain extent re-enacted in paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of the present Bill, for the first time in the history of this country, or, at any rate, so far as I know, in the history of the last 200 or 300 years, extraordinary powers are given to the Minister of Agriculture to deal with the method in which both the landowner and the farmer cultivate what is their own. Now, paragraphs (ii) and (iii), not content with saying that if the farmer or the landowner who farms his own land does not cultivate the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry the Minister may do certain things, but another complicated paragraph is added, which says:
(b) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute the necessary repairs (not being repairs which the tenant is liable to execute) to any buildings on the land being repairs required for the proper cultivation or working thereof,
may serve notice, in the case of neglect by an owner to execute repairs, on the owner requiring him to execute the necessary repairs within such time as may be specified in the notice, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry or for securing such improvement or change as aforesaid in the manner of cultivating or using the land, as the case may be":
Such a mix up either of words or of purpose has never been put into a Bill. You mix up repairs with directions for securing cultivation in accordance with the rules of good husbandry which you have already got under the Sub-section which has just been passed. Why repeat them? My right hon. Friend only last night remonstrated with me for en-
deavouring to put in something which was superfluous. If this not superfluous I do not know the meaning of the word. It is not in the interest of the landlord or the farmer, or, still more important, the consumer and the nation, that the Government should be interfering continually in the management of their business in the way indicated in this Clause. Is there anybody in this House, except prejudiced people who are already committed to this Clause, who does not believe that the less the Government interferes in the management of our business the greater will be the prosperity of the country? That elementary fact is beginning to dawn on the people.
Here the Government propose to interfere in the management of farming in a way in which they never dared to interfere in any other business except during the period of the War. Can anyone conceive the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying, "I am going to pass a Bill which will permit me, after consultation with a finance committee, which shall consist of customers of the banks, to go down to a bank and say, 'You are not conducting your business in a way that my consultative committee and I think right. Therefore we are going to tell you how to conduct your business, and if our directions are not observed there will be certain penalties'"? Such a Bill would not have the remotest chance of passing either in this House or in the House of Lords, which, thank God, still exists. If it is not right to interfere with the business of banking, how can it be right to interfere with the business of farming? It was only the other day that we found out that the interference of the Government during the War with the business of farming—an interference which these, two Sub-sections would perpetuate—resulted in the expenditure of £4,000,000 by the various agricultural committees, and everyone who has any knowledge of the subject will agree that in all probability the result was nil. There were in some cases additions to cultivation. That is, land which was in grass produced certain corn crops, but other land—arable land—which would have been cultivated efficiently, having been ploughed up, was neglected, with the result that it produced very little. The grass disappeared altogether, and therefore, while you lost in hay and grass from arable land, which was not properly cultivated, you have to set against that
only a very few cases where the ploughing of the land resulted in a certain crop.
Then, as to repairs. Is the Clause limited to the ordinary repairs which the landlord has to execute under his agreement? If so, there is already a remedy at law. Therefore there is no necessity for this particlular provision, which can only complicate matters. I must protest against the habit of having in one Clause five-and-a-half pages and twelve Subsections. There are a good many more, because each of these Sub-sections has a good many paragraphs. It is almost impossible to discuss a Clause of this sort, but the Clause goes very much farther than executing the ordinary repairs. Paragraph (iii) ends with these words:
or whether the production of food on the land can be increased in the national interest by the occupier by means of such an improvement or change as aforesaid or whether the repairs required to be executed are necessary for the proper cultivation or working of the land, or whether the time specified in the notice for the execution of such repairs is reasonable
Suppose that I am of opinion that the best way of farming land in accordance with the national interest under the direction of the Minister of Health, who is continually impressing on everybody the necessity for more milk, is to work it as a dairy farm, and therefore I request the landlord to erect a cowshed with the necessary accessories, say, for 70 to 80 cows on a 300 acre farm, which is not an unreasonable number. The rural district council, directed by various officials who are being appointed continually under some Act which this House was sufficiently foolish to pass, will say that there must be a certain amount of light, and the bulidings must be of certain material, the cost of which is very great, especially at the present time. If the landlord erects these buildings the tenant may find, when the tenancy is under a yearly agreement, that he is losing money, and if by any chance he finds that he can get another farm which is suitable for dairy cultivation, on which buildings are already erected, he may give a year's notice.
The tenant may always give the landlord a year's notice, whatever the landlord has done to induce him to remain on the holding. The only time a year's notice does not apply is when a landlord wants to get rid of a tenant. It is a case of "heads you win and tails I lose," and is not likely to induce the
application of capital to land. A new tenant may say to the landlord, "I am not going to use this as a dairy farm. The Board of Agriculture is asking for more wheat and there are guaranteed prices. I am going to use this as an arable farm or a farm for breeding fat stock." It is no use for the landlord to go to the Agricultural Committee. The chances are the Agricultural Committee will listen to what the tenant says. I am not exaggerating what may happen. Before we go any further in this direction we should know clearly from the Government what it is they intend to do. I do not question the intentions of the Government, but I question their power to bird their successors. Whatever we get from the Government, or whatever the Government wish to do, must be put in clear language in the Bill, so that it can be understood by the three classes affected by the Bill, namely, the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer. I would very much have preferred if paragraph (i) as well as paragraphs (ii) and (iii) had been left out. The ostensible object of the Bill is to increase production, and these are the paragraphs which are supposed to enact that production shall be increased. It is a most excellent idea, but I should go about it in quite a different way from that of these paragraphs—I should leave it to the classes concerned to manage their own affairs in their own way. Their own interests will compel them to manage their affairs in the best and most profitable way.
Attempts by the Government to interfere in this way will result in an increase in the number of sales of land. Who will care to hold land, or who will invest capital in land, if he is put at the mercy of a Government Department, representatives of which can come down and impose upon him irksome conditions at the will of some committee, actuated, as such committees have been in many cases, by petty quarrels with their neighbours? The Government will say to a man who has either inherited an estate or invested money in an estate: "You are not to be the judge as to how you are to manage your own affairs. We are to come in and tell you what you are to do. We are not to be liable for any mistakes which may ensue if our advice is wrong. You must suffer for those mistakes." Under
the Corn Production Act of 1917 there is a Clause which says that if the action of the Minister results in a loss to the person whose business has been interfered with, that person can go to an arbitrator and obtain compensation. That was not an illusory Clause, because I have obtained compensation under it. Such protection disappears from this Bill, so far as I can see. In 1917, when we were at war, and it was necessary for all classes to make sacrifices—none made those sacrifices more readily than the landowners, the farmers, and the labourers—we were paid compensation for losses, but now in the time of peace, when we are told to look forward to a new world, we find that we are being treated worse than we were treated in the terrible years of the War.

Lieut. Colonel ROYDS: I desire to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. The broad lines upon which my right hon. Friend objected to this proposal is that it places permanently under control the greatest industry in the country. Every other industry that has been controlled is now in course of emergency from control, to the great satisfaction of all those concerned. Here we have now a very bright outlook for agriculture, if we are left to manage our own affairs, and it is just at this moment that we are invited by the Board of Agriculture to place our heads in a noose for all time. I want to know who has asked for this. It has certainly not been suggested by any representative of agriculture. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I hope he will tell us definitely who has made these suggestions and why the whole strength of the Government has been brought to bear on us to force this scheme down our throats. It has been said that we are now in control under the Corn Production Act. That Act terminates in 1922, and as long as it lasts the Government are responsible for any loss occasioned in consequence of the notices that are served or the orders that are made, but this Act clearly provides, or attempts to provide, for the making permanent of all these notices and orders, and no compensation is available for any loss occasioned thereby. Is it to be contemplated that any person in any ordinary business would submit to such a measure? Is it likely that we shall attract capital to land if we are to be placed under the control of a body which knows nothing whatever about
the business in which we are engaged? The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, have confidence in the Minister, even if you have not confidence in the local county committees. The Minister need not delegate to those committees any powers that he does not choose to delegate." I have less confidence in the Minister than I have in the county committees. I have no confidence in the Minister at all. As far as I am personally concerned I should very much like to see the Board of Agriculture abolished. Ever since I have been engaged in agriculture I received no support whatever from the Board, nor do I know anyone who has, but I have been living in continual dread of any orders they may make, and I am living in very much greater dread now, and my alarm will not be diminished if this Bill becomes law. That is a most serious matter.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will say, "Oh, these orders and notices and these powers conferred on the Minister are meant only for bad owners and bad tenants." Then it will be said, "We have complete confidence in the old owners; they are good mostly. What we are afraid of are the new owners, and land is changing hands so frequently that it is best for us to make these provisions to protect tenants against the new owners." Who are the new owners? In the main, they are the late tenants and they are increasing in numbers daily, and these late tenants in most cases are the most active, enterprising, and capable farmers in the country. Other persons who have bought land are men who are well off, who have embarked money in land in the spirit of the times, with the whole object, in the words of the Prime Minister, of "making the desert rejoice and blossom as the rose." They mean to do what they can for the benefit of the estates they purchase. Those are the only two classes of persons who have bought land, as far as I know, and it is against those classes that the right hon. Gentleman says it is necessary to protect the poor tenant. In my belief, not another quarter of corn will be produced by reason of these Clauses. On the contrary, I think production will be greatly diminished. That is the only matter of importance we have to consider. I wish to oppose the Clause with all the strength at my command.

7.0 P.M.

Sir A. DOSCAWEN: The action taken by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banury) is just about as inconvenient as it possibly can be. He began by telling us that he would confine himself strictly to moving the omission of two particular Subsections. In reply to an interruption, he said he would not raise the whole question.

Sir F. BANBURY: I said I would not raise your Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: At all events, he has raised the whole question of control, which is practically a debate on the Clause, although he has confined it to two particular paragraphs. Therefore I take it that I am entitled to reply upon the whole broad question of the control of agriculture. He proceeded then to deal in detail with certain provisions of the Bill and Amendments which have been put down. He dealt in considerable detail with the question of repairs. I am quite prepared to discuss with him the proposals contained in the Bill and certain Amendments that I myself have put down to the Bill, but I do submit that, on the general question of whether what is practically the Clause itself shall stand part or not, to discuss details as to repairs to be done, how they are to be done, and what control there is to be, is exceedingly inconvenient, and a course that the House should not be invited to undertake. I will not go into these details now. I do not think this is the proper place, and I think the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) agreed it was not the proper place; but I will deal with what I believe to be the aim and object of my right hon. Friend, and that is to get rid altogether of any kind of control of agriculture.
Where do we stand? We have already passed Clause 1 of this Bill. That Clause gives to the farmers substantial guarantees in respect of their cereal crops. It says that if the price of wheat or oats drops below a certain figure, the difference between the guaranteed figure and the actual market price shall be made up by the Government. We have given those substantial guarantees, and we have done so because we believe they will stimulate the production of cereals in this country and maintain arable land, which we think
to be essential to the nation's interest. These guarantees involve a big responsibility upon the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend did not attempt to move the rejection of Clauses 1, 2 and 3. He did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, although the guaranteed prices were probably the main feature of the Bill. Yet now, when the guarantees are passed in the Bill on the Second Reading, when they have been passed in Committee, he comes here and says that the State is to have no quid pro quo in return for the guarantee.

Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend must not misrepresent me. I specially said at the beginning of my speech that paragraph (i), which we have already passed, enabled the Government to see that cultivation was carried out under the rules of good husbandry. It is quite true that I said afterwards I would rather have nothing, but I pointed out that that was in the Bill, and that that was sufficient, and that you ought not to introduce these further Clauses afterwards.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That may have been the technical effect of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, but what about his speech? He said, "Why should we have these ignorant fellows deciding whether it is good husbandry or not?" Therefore, even if my right hon. Friend by his Amendment did leave in "good husbandry" and nothing else, the whole object and aim of his speech was to take it away and to destroy any kind of safeguard. That is not all. Are we going to insist, in return for these important guarantees which the Government have given to tenant farmers, upon nothing but rules of good husbandry? My right hon. Friend has spoken at some length on the question of repairs. I put it to him, and I put it to my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Amendment, and I put it to the House generally, are they prepared to say that, in cases where a landlord refuses to do repairs which are essential in order that the tenant may cultivate according to the rules of good husbandry, we are to have no power whatever to compel the landlord to do those repairs? I say that is a position which is absolutely untenable. I claim that, in addition to telling tenant farmers to cultivate their land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, and in addition also to compelling landlords to
do such repairs as are really necessary, we ought to go still further. We are bound to insist that there shall be such, conditions of farming as will guarantee the production of the, maximum amount of food from the land. We are bound to say that farming shall be carried on to the best possible advantage to the nation; that where necessary we should have the right to insist, on improved methods of cultivation; that where, for example, you have got the very poorest grassland, and by such a simple process as the application of basic slag, that grassland can be improved, and carry a much bigger head of cattle than it carried before, we surely should have the right to say to those farmers who are getting a guarantee for their cereal crops that they must make the best use of the grassland? I give that as one illustration.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: They do not want the guarantee. You are forcing it on them.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I appeal to the House whether I have not been pressed times out of number by hon. Members who sit here—members of the Agricultural Committee—for these guarantees. How many times have not we been asked what is our agricultural policy? How many times have not we been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley), "When are you going to give us suitable guaranteed prices?" He has asked me over and over again whether the prices in the Corn Production Act are not entirely inadequate.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I asked about prices under the Defence of the Realm Act—prices fixed by the Food Controller.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, my hon. Friend cannot take refuge in that. The very first speech I ever made in the House after I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary was in reply to a Motion on the Address moved by my hon. Friend demanding amendments and extensions of the Corn Production Act in order that guaranteed prices might be brought up to a suitable level. I need not go into that. The fact is that times out of number I have been pressed in this House for guaranteed prices based on cost of production. There is a further fact. None of my hon. Friends—neither my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, nor my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Grantham
(Lieut.-Colonel Royds)—have ever suggested that in this Bill the guaranteed prices should be left out. They have never voted against them. Over and over again we have been asked to insert guaranteed prices in the Bill, and it is really playing with the thing for my hon. Friends to turn round now and say, "We do not want the guaranteed prices."

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: If I might interrupt my right hon. Friend, the point is this: Guaranteed prices were suggested, and we thought that they might help the production of food, but the Government have coupled with those guaranteed prices conditions which are impossible, and which will diminish the production of food.

Mr. MILLS: Are decent wages impossible?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. and gallant Friend cannot take that line. He cannot expect this Government or any government to give guaranteed prices to tenant farmers, and other advantages such as the extension of the Wages Board to labourers, unless the State gets a quid pro quo; and the quid pro quo is that the State shall have some right to see that the land of the country is properly cultivated. In his Caxton Hall speech, in which this policy was first adumbrated by the Prime Minister, he referred to this very point, and speaking of slack farmers he said:
They disgraced their class; they reduced the wealth of the country; they diminished its security, and therefore there is no room for them.
I believe that that doctrine is assented to by everybody. If we are going to give these guarantees, if we are going to try to assist farmers by guaranteeing them against the disaster which overtook them in the eighties and nineties when there was a break in prices, the State in return must have the power of some control, and it is that control which is contained in this Clause. I understand the point of my hon. Friends to be this. They cannot refuse to assent to control of some sort, but they say that in this Clause it is the wrong sort of control. It is irksome control. May I point out that the control in this Clause is infinitely less irksome than the control which exists under the Corn Production Act. And may I point out to my right hon. Friend that one of the effects of his
Amendment, which apparently even he with his great Parliamentary experience did not observe, would be that the existing provisions of the Corn Production Act would remain, whereas we abrogate them by putting in the Sub-section which he proposes to omit. These are the words which we abrogate, but which would remain if my right hon. Friend's Amendment were carried:
That for the purpose of increasing in the national interest the production of food, the mode of cultivating any land or the use to which any land is being put should be changed.
That is a far greater power than we ask for under this Bill. In this Bill, as it stands, we have no power to change cultivation. In an Amendment which I propose to move later, I suggest a certain power of changing cultivation, but only this—an improvement in the existing methods, and the maintenance of a certain amount of arable land. And look at the safeguards with which it is surrounded. Before any change of cultivation or any improvement in the existing methods can take place, there is a right of appeal to an arbitrator; that is to say, the people interested have a right of appeal to an arbitrator. They can appeal, first, on the point, Is it in the national interest? They can appeal, secondly, on the point, Will it injuriously affect the interests of the parties interested? Until the arbitrator has given his award, there will be no cultivation Order carried out at all, and the award will only be given if it is proved that the change proposed is in the national interest and that it will not injuriously affect the interests of those who are interested in the land. I say that the power is infinitely less than that which exists to-day under the Corn Production Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was a War measure."] I quite agree, and because this is a peace measure we have limited the control, and I maintain that the control we propose is essentially reasonable. My right hon. Friend makes a great point about the payment of compensation. It seems to me that one objection he has to this Clause is that, being enabled to get a cheque under the old Bill, he will not be enabled to get one under the new Bill. That is so. I can explain precisely why it is so. In the War we were acting under the stress of difficult circumstances, and there was hurry. The submarines were at work, and we had to
plough up as quickly as we could. It was inevitable, absolutely inevitable, that under those conditions mistakes should be made. Mistakes were made, and I am sorry to say one mistake was made on the estate of my right hon. Friend, and for which he got a nice cheque. It was inevitable under those circumstances that we should pay full compensation where mistakes were made; but in this case, where we are adopting a permanent peace policy, we hope to avoid mistakes. Instead of ploughing first and compensating afterwards, what we propose to do is to give an appeal in the first instance as to whether the order is a reasonable, one or not. I have been obliged, much against my will, to deal with the whole question. I maintain that this particular Amendment is really an attack on the Clause, and that anybody who votes for it is voting against any kind of control of cultivation. I maintain that in so doing he is denying to the State that advantage to which the State is entitled in virtue of the guarantee that it gives under Clause 1. I maintain further that there are many points of detail in the Subsections which are the legitimate subjects of discussion, and if it can be shown that some details are wrong, I am quite prepared to listen and consider such representations. But I do plead that we should, at all events, proceed with what is to all intents and purposes Clause 4, and afterwards consider the details, and, putting aside the broad question, which must be granted, discuss those Amendments on those matters in which hon. Members are naturally interested.

Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has defended the policy of the Government with regard to control. Compulsion, insistence, Prussianism ran through the whole of his argument. I understood that we were to be freed from compulsion, insistence and Prussianism, but apparently the new world is to commence with the compulsion and control of the most important industry in the State. Agriculture is probably the most technical industry in the country.

Mr. MILLS: And the most declining.

Mr. LAMBERT: It depends not only upon the market price of the products, but so largely upon the climate that if a
man sows two bushels of wheat it is impossible to say how many he is going to take out, as it will depend entirely upon the weather. We are to have Government officials coming down to tell those who understand agriculture how best to conduct their business. To me the whole of this control and compulsion is objectionable. This Bill has been founded upon the Corn Production Act of 1917. Let us see how that has worked, because practical experience of its working is far better than all the prophecies than can be made. In 1918 the amount of wheat cultivated in England was 2,556,000 acres. We have had the Corn Production Act, that wonderful Act with its wonderful system of guarantees in operation, and the acreage of wheat this year has declined to 1,877,000 acres.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: What was it in 1914?

Mr. LAMBERT: The acreage of 1914 was 1,807,000 acres. Thus your wonderful Act has brought about an increase of 70,000 acres.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The object of this is to secure arable cultivation, and we have a million acres more arable land to-day than in 1914.

Mr. LAMBERT: You may, but all the land ploughed up during the War has not been able to get back to grass again yet.

Mr. MILLS: Why should it?

Mr. LAMBERT: Because it pays the farmer better. There is no man going to engage in an industry unless he gets a profit out of it, and the man who is engaged in it knows better how to get a profit than any Government official. It is an amazing thing that we have this curious combination of the Coalition and Labour. I stand here as an old-fashioned individualist—

Mr. MILLS: Laissez faire.

Mr. LAMBERT: Who believes that the individual citizen knows best how to conduct his own business? Here we have a kind of amalgamation between the Government and the Labour party.

Mr. MILLS: Agricultural labourers as policemen!

Mr. LAMBERT: I do not understand that interruption. Some hon. Gentlemen are used to street corner oratory, but I
am not in love with it. I say it is a most amazing thing to see a Coalition Government, which rests largely upon the idea that the industries of the country have been built up by individual enterprise, joining with the Labour party in endeavouring to compel the agriculturists to cultivate their land, not as they wish, but as Government officials wish. I do not understand that, and I do not believe in it. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they had given substantial guarantees to the farmers. We have never asked for those substantial guarantees. I understood the substantial guarantees were for the advantage of the State, and you have always told us so, to get a larger amount in cultivation. That is the reason for your guarantee. If you imagine you are going to get a larger percentage of land put into arable cultivation by reason of these guarantees, you have been told over and over again by the most practical agriculturists that you will not increase your arable area. As a matter of fact, the arable wheat area has gone down by 600,000 acres. You are simply giving a guarantee for wheat and oats and for that guarantee you say we are going to control the whole agricultural industry. You are going, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to make the farmer sow basic slag on grass land because you have given some other farmer a guarantee for wheat. The thing is so ridiculous that it is unarguable. The Government believe that they have the country behind them in thinking that the Government official understands the agricultural question better than those engaged in it.
I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has come in, and it really does me good to see him. I have sat at his seat for a very long time, and I have tried to follow him. But it is a little difficult in these days when, as I have been pointing out, along with the Labour party they are supporting the principle of Government control leading on to nationalisation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always been a home ruler, and I have heard him supporting home rule for Wales and Ireland, and now he is actually going to control agriculture from Whitehall. The Welsh members came here yesterday and said: "We do not want anything more to do with Whitehall on the Wages Board, let us get rid of it." To-day the right hon.
Gentleman comes down and says: "I am not going to have any of these home rule schemes. I am going to control this industry of agriculture from Whitehall." I know that the Prime Minister is an individualist, and I do ask him to let the agriculturists of the country have freedom. My mind goes back almost thirty years when I first came, to this House. We had very grave agricultural depression. The farmers and the landlords were losing their capital, and land was practically unsaleable. That depression was weathered by the owners of the land and the farmers pulling together under their own system and without Government control. When agriculture was at its very worst there was no question of Government control, and now that we have weathered the storm you are to-day really breaking up the agricultural system which has worked so well. You are putting nothing in its place but Government control, which in every case has worked badly. I appeal to the Government not to force this through. I do not believe in Government control; I do not believe that this Bill will add one single acre to the wheat of the country, and it is because I believe that I object very strongly to this question of control. If my right hon. Friend goes to a division, though he and I do not often agree, I shull support him.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I can sincerely say that I never give either my voice or my vote in this House against the Government except with extreme reluctance, and I have been trying to see if there was any possibility of my supporting the Government on this Amendment. I am afraid I have utterly failed to find any ground on which I could do so, and I feel compelled to support the Amendment, but in saying that I do not in the least tie myself to its technicalities. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that if this Amendment were carried it would bring into operation a method of control which would be still more objectionable. That may be so, and, therefore, if I support the Amendment, it is-really upon the broad grounds that the contents of these Sub-sections as they stand appear to me to be utterly impossible. Just let me read to the House what appear to me to be the material word that the Government are putting before the House. They say that the Ministry are to have the power to serve a notice
on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give.
If any hon. Member will consider what that would mean as applied to any other industry in the country, it will enable him to appreciate the meaning of these words. What would be thought by any gentleman engaged, we will say, in the cotton industry if a Bill was suddenly brought into this House which said that the Board of Trade or some other Ministry should be able to give directions that that industry was to be carried on in accordance with directions to be given by the Ministry? We have been hearing a great deal recently about the industry of mining and about control, but no one has ever said that the actual administration of that industry could possibly be carried on by detailed directions from day to day as to how it was to be carried on from some Ministry in Whitehall.
My right hon. Friend made a very indignant speech just now in opposition to the Amendment. He said that we have already passed Clauses giving substantial guarantees to the farmer in regard to prices. I entirely agreed with my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lambert) when he said just now that whatever may be said about the policy of guaranteed prices, they were never asked for by the farmers, and, as I understood it when the policy was first promulgated, there never was any suggestion that they were being given as a boon to the farmers. The whole object of them was in order to carry out the policy outlined more than once by the Prime Minister—a very sound policy too—that it was necessary to put agriculture on such a footing that we should not be so dependent in the future as we have been in the past upon the fluctuations of supplies from abroad. The whole object of the guaranteed prices was to give a larger supply of home-grown food.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that, having given those guaranteed prices, there must be a quid pro quo for the State, but surely that is entirely a wrong way of looking at it. It is not a question of giving on one hand and giving on the other to various competing interests. The object, whether you do it by guaranteed prices or in any other way, is to improve the industry if you can so as to promote a greater supply of food, but I agree to this extent with the right
hon. Gentleman. Having given the guaranteed prices, the State, I quite agree, is entitled to say that in return for those guaranteed prices, not as something given as a boon to the farmers, but as a balance to the policy, that the State is entitled to take such steps as are possible for securing tho object of the policy, namely, the largest amount of food production. The reason why I object to the control contained in this sub-section is that I do not believe it will have that effect. If it would have that effect, I agree there would be nothing unreasonable in insisting upon it, but it can hardly fail, as I see it, to have the opposite effect, and so far as I have been able to hear the opinion of a great number of experts, both in this House and outside, who understand this industry thoroughly and have been engaged in it all their lifetime, it is that the effect of this control will not be a quid pro quo for the State at all, but will, if anything, tend to counteract the effect of the guaranteed prices.
There are right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite who from time to time still profess their adherence to what they call the principles of Free Trade. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), is very fond of assuring the House and the country that he is still a believer in the principles of Free Trade, and I believe the Labour party are too. Do those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen bear in mind when they speak in that way that the fundamental proposition underlying the whole policy of free trade was and is that you get the best results in any industry by leaving those who are engaged in it to the action of the principle—to use a very old-fashioned phrase—of enlightened self-interest? Although I am not, in the modern sense of the word perhaps, a free trader, I always have believed, and I do believe still, in the truth of that doctrine, that in any industry in which men are engaged you will in the long run get the best results by allowing free play to the principle of enlightened self-interest. My right hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary says, in this respect, "Why not trust the Minister of Agriculture?" Well. I do not go so far as one of my hon. Friends, who said he had no confidence whatever in the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, after all, is an abstraction. He may be my Noble Friend (Lord Lee) at the
present moment, but we do not know who he may be to-morrow. He may be a great expert, or he may not, but I would suggest to my right hon. Friend when he exhorts us to have confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, that there is someone else that experience teaches us we should have confidence in, and that is in the British farmer.
My own belief is that the British farmer, take him for all in all, is infinitely more competent than any Minister of Agriculture is likely to be to know how he can conduct his own business in his own interests, and therefore in the national interests, because it is impossible to separate the two. If a farmer carries out his own business so as to promote his own enlightened self-interest, that will be to get out of his land the greatest amount of produce of which that land is capable, and it is perfectly idle to suppose that some bureaucratic department in Whitehall—let them be never so expert, let them have a staff at their disposal of archangels and super-men—to suppose that they, over the great variations of soil and of climate of which the British industry is made up, can dictate or even offer advice to the farmers of this country which is likely to produce better results than those farmers can produce for themselves. There might be something to be said for this control, if my right hon. Friend came down here as the representative of an industry which he could say was a backward or a badly-conducted industry, but I have never heard such a suggestion made against British agriculture. I have always understood that British agriculture is the glory of the country, and it is probably the most efficiently conducted agriculture to be found in the world. Therefore, for a Ministry to come down here now and say that they are likely to benefit the national interest in regard to food production by putting in such words as these, that they may give any directions that the Ministry may choose to offer, appears to me to be the height of folly. I say nothing on the question of repairs. I think there is more to be said for that, and I think I should probably support the Government there, but I feel strongly that so far as this part of the Bill is concerned, it is so fatal to the best interests of agriculture and of the nation that I cannot possibly support the Clause as it stands, and if it remains in the Bill, I
shall be very doubtful, indeed, whether I can support the Third Reading.

Mr. WINTRINGHAM: Whenever the Prime Minister has a moment of spare time, and cares to muse on the perversity of human nature, he might be rather interested to consider how it comes about at odd moments that his supporters on that side of the House occasionally leave him, so that his Minister in charge of a Bill has to rely for some measure of support on this side, and how it comes about that a very modest Member, rather disposed to vote against the Government, has occasionally to give a vote on the merits of the case for this Government. I do not see that the Minister in charge of the Bill has had his arguments faced. We all hate control, and the farmers in my Division hate it and loathe it, and would willingly dispense with it, and I think that they would willingly dispense with the guaranteed prices. If you gave the farmers security of tenure and, to use a vulgar expression, washed out guaranteed prices and control, they would be perfectly happy; but this is the point of the Minister in charge of the Bill, that, having given guarantees, and assuming that some day the Government of the day will be paying a subsidy or guarantees to agriculture, they have a perfect right to insist on a wide measure of control. You cannot get over the fact that if they give guarantees the Government are perfectly entitled to ask for control.

Sir F. BANBURY: Let them withdraw the guarantees.

Mr. WINTRINGHAM: If I may, with very great respect, as a new Member, allude to that interjection of the right hon. Baronet, I should like to say that I think he would be in a much stronger position if he put down a reasoned Amendment on the Third Reading withdrawing both the guarantees and control.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I say, in answer to that, that I long ago made up my mind that, if the Bill is not very seriously modified, I shall certainly vote against the Third Reading?

Mr. WINTRINGHAM: The right hon. Baronet would probably find support on this side of the House if he had a reasoned Amendment trying to eradicate both guarantees and control. I do not know how far that can be done, but may I,
as the right hon. Baronet has made an interjection, go further and trace his argument? He looks upon the future of the land as in rather a parlous state, with all this control. I do not agree at all, and as a business man—and I know the right hon. Baronet is an eminent business man—I would ask, what sort of business, in the City or elsewhere, would not insist on control if it gave the guarantees that the Government are giving in this Bill? There is not a single company that the right hon. Baronet is associated with which does not insist on control in exchange, not for giving, but for lending money. What applies in a business must also apply in agriculture. Agriculture is a business. A right hon. Gentleman has tried to draw a rather gloomy picture of what cotton would do if cotton were controlled in this way. I do not know what cotton would do, but I can imagine that a good many industries—and I could name some—would be perfectly willing, when markets were against them, to accept almost any measure of control if those industries could be guaranteed against falling prices. You cannot have it both ways, and what applies to any industry which would welcome guaranteed prices against a sinking market must apply to agriculture.
The argument of the Minister in charge of this Bill has not been shaken. I say that control is a bad thing in itself, but I say that control is necessary in exchange for the guarantees. I should be perfectly happy if anybody could so move an Amendment that we could get rid both of guarantees, which I am perfectly certain are not only bad for the Government, but bad, in the long run, for the industry, and of control. I do not think the farmers want it, and I do not think the House wants it. I cannot conceive how agriculture, later on, when it has to lean on the Government, and the Government are paying it, perhaps, some millions in guarantees, can be justified in comparison with other industries. But the point I wish to urge is this, that hon. Members who have spoken against control have said little or nothing against guarantees. As a matter of fact, the Members who have spoken rather welcome guarantees, but with guarantees they want to escape control. They cannot do it. It never can be justified. It is not fair. If agriculture wants guarantees, it must accept
control. If it does not want to accept control, it must waive the guarantees, and I think agriculture would stand on its feet much better if it, like other industries, swung clear of control.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I am one who will support the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture stated that we who supported this Amendment were opposing control. I do not believe that control is going to achieve the object for whcih, I think, this Bill was introduced, that is, increased production. We have been twitted, first by the Parliamentary Secretary himself, and since by a Member who has just spoken, that we have not previously voted against the guarantees being given for the production of wheat and oats, and that, if we would consider, it, we ought to support control. I, personally, would sooner see the guarantees taken away and agriculture doing its best under those conditions, than see this control introduced. But I am anxious that the agricultural labourer should be well paid, and I cannot honestly see how he is to receive a good wage unless the State will take responsibility. I hate the idea of subsidies. I have represented an agricultural constituency for some ten years, and I believe the agricultural labourers in my constituency think that I have their interests at heart, and I do say that I am anxious to see them getting a better wage even than they are getting now. You are not going to get that, and you are not going to get many of them employed, unless you do see agriculture going ahead. I state that largely as one of the reasons why I have not spoken earlier against the guaranteed prices, because, if I had spoken against them, I feel I should be losing the chance of the agricultural labourer getting good wages. I know many of them are enjoying a good deal more of the amenities of life than ever before. I wish to see them continuing to enjoy those privileges, and, therefore, I have not been able to oppose the guarantee, which, I understand, would only be paid according to the rate of wages of the labourer. It seems to me that the subsidy is nothing less than a subsidy to enable the agricultural labourer to get a good, fair, living wage, and for that reason I should be sorry to see it dropped.
Hon. Members say you cannot expect to have the guarantee unless you submit to
Government control. If the guarantee is going to achieve the object for which it was introduced, it is going to get the corn grown in the country without any compulsion from anybody. If it is going to pay the farmer and the agricultural labourer to put their best into the land, and get as much production as they can, the guaranteed price has achieved its object. But if the guaranteed price is not going to pay the agricultural labourer the wage he deserves, and is not going to bring a profit to the farmer, you can sign all the Orders you like from Whitehall and you will not get the corn grown. I say that if you want to get the corn grown you have to get the farmer and agricultural labourer to produce it. The moment you come along and say what they have got to do, you lose their support, which is essential. I believe the guarantee ought to get the increased production without the control. It is my intention to vote for this Amendment, as, by so doing, I understand, we shall show that we are against control, which, I believe, is against the interests of the community and agriculturists. May I go one step further? If this guarantee does fall on the State, it means that the prices of wheat and oats in other parts of the world fall below those in this country. Is it to the interest of the agricultural labourer that wheat and oats should then be grown in this country? If it is, it is right for the State to give that guarantee, and pay that money so as to keep these men on the land and encourage the industry. If, on the other hand, it is to the advantage of the State, when the price has fallen to the point that the gratuity comes to be paid, that the land should fall out of cultivation, it will not be necessary for the State to meet it, if that is the wish of the State. I think, under those circumstances, it is far better that the Government should give up control in the extreme degree at present asked for under this Bill.

Mr. ACLAND: I do not want to go over the ground that was so largely covered by the Minister in charge of the Bill, but I would like to take up the particular reference to me made by the hon, and gallant Member opposite with regard to Free Trade. Free Trade does not mean, and I think has never meant, enlightened self-interest to be the governing principle without any sort of regulation or interference by the State. That
is a travesty of the Free Trade position which always has been used by Protectionists, and no doubt always will. But there is no incompatibility, and never has been, between the Free Trade position and the support, say, of Factory Acts and Wages Board Acts, and all sorts of other measures of social reform which Free Traders consider necessary. The Liberal party and the Labour party in the past have backed up these things without in any way interfering with the principles of Free Trade, and it is a travesty of the principles of Free Trade to make out that it is incompatible with modifying liberty of action by State regulation. I do not want to deal in more than a sentence or two with one of the main points, namely, that it is really rather absurd for Members who have, at any rate, never raised their voices against guarantees, now to get up and object to the quid pro quo for those guarantees in the shape of control. I know that some Members have quite genuinely said they would rather have no guarantees at all, but those who know anything about the agricultural industry know that, on the whole, the industry has wanted guaranteed prices, and we cannot get away from it. I do not suppose there is a single Chamber of Agriculture in the country which has not three or four times over passed resolutions in favour of it, and, although particular hon. Members may be absolutely consistent in saying that they themselves have been against it, it cannot be represented that the agricultural industry is doing a fair thing when, after so persistently asking for guarantees, now that it is a question of giving some quid pro quo, they turn round and say "We do not want guarantees after all, and we would much rather not have control, which is the counterpart of getting guarantees."

Sir F. BANBURY: All through the history of the question I have been against them.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. ACLAND: I was not criticising the right hon. Baronet. Some have been perfectly consistent, and the right hon. Gentleman has always been consistent in opposing everything. But, on the whole, I think my view is true, that the industry has wanted guarantees, and it is late in the day now to turn round and say it does not want them, and to try to get rid of the control, which must come from them. If the right hon. Gentleman's
Amendment is carried, and, as a consequence, the Amendment proposed by the Minister is not carried, we shall be left simply to the rules of good husbandry; and that is an extraordinary limited phrase when you come to interpret it in an agricultural district. I have taken some steps to find out some of the things which might be brought under the rules of "good husbandry," and have endeavoured to discover from valuers the various interpretations of those rules in the districts in which they live. The phrase is a common one in leases, but that does not prevent an extraordinary amount of the slack and bad cultivation. It means little more than that a man shall keep his land reasonably clean and that the drainage shall be in reasonably good condition. I asked a man the other day what he would include. I did not ask him about general departments of agriculture, about which I am not in any way an expert. But I am specially interested in the growing of fruit trees, and I asked him whether under the rules of good husbandry he or I would be required to prune the trees. He considered it was very doubtful indeed. Yet enlightened self-interest would seem to point to the very great desirability of doing this.
Again, when we talk of enlightened self-interest, there are farmers who will not do a hand's turn to get things done, even though it would pay them over and over again, and they need to be wakened up. Unless something of this kind is done you will be unable to insist upon the pruning of trees, the spraying of them, the placing of grease bands, the application of basic slag, or anything of the kind. Neither, as things stand, can you get farmers to take advantage, however much the thing may be laid before them of, for instance, the new seed wheats which are coming into the market gradually as the result of eminently successful work which has been going on for years at Cambridge. This, of course, does not come within the rules of good husbandry. There is no lever really, except a long process of education which unfortunately goes so slowly in the agricultural community, and the thing to be done to improve agricultural processes which are urgently needed, is to give some power to the Government or other authority to do it.
After all, it is very easy to say something against Government officials at Whitehall. There is, as we know, a prejudice against them, and observations directed against them can always get a cheer in this House, or anywhere else. But what, after all, is in the Bill? The Bill says that the Ministry of Agriculture has to consult the County Agricultural Committees, and they would not, in practice, of course, be able to act in advance of those Agricultural Committees. If these County Committees are to do the duty for which they have been formed they will, as directly representing the agricultural interest, proceed, in practice, in accordance with the views of those they meet in their daily lives, the farmers, the landowners, the land agents and the agricultural labourers. The committees ought to be in the closest touch with the agricultural interest. In these committees you have a good buffer, at any rate, between the officials at Whitehall and the farmer on whose devoted head they are supposed to be going to descend. The body selected by the county contains members, no doubt, appointed by the Board of Agriculture, but reinforced from the agricultural opinion of the county. But really there is not going to be anything done under this Bill unless you have the convinced best agricultural opinion of the county behind it, as represented by the members of the Agricultural Committees, who think that something really could be done and ought to be done, but could not do it without harmony among the interests concerned. I only add the point, with which I do not propose to deal, made by the Minister in charge, about appeals. It is perfectly true. The Board would not be able to act unreasonably, in view of the ample powers of appeal, or in advance of public opinion of the local committee, based on the County Council, of elected representatives of the people.
As a matter of fact, I believe anyone who really considers the probabilities of the situation will be much more afraid that there will be too little control and improvement of agriculture as a result of this Clause than that there will be too much. During the War we did all sorts of things. A very great number of them were failures, but more were successes.
That is a thing which is always lost sight of. There was a tremendous lot of splendid and most improved cultivation. But now the feeling in these matters is very different from what it was in the War. There is, I should think, no risk now that the drastic action which had to be taken, involving as it did some of the failures, would be taken now by any of these, agricultural committees. The general feeling, even of the officials, and certainly of the members of the agricultural committees, would be not to burden themselves with undue interference in anybody's farm in the county whose good opinion they value. All the feeling is the other way. We have gone back after the War, and the general opinion is that given expression to in this House about noninterference with the man's industry, and "let him be the judge of what is best," and all that sort of thing. I think it is very unlikely that there will be any danger, in endeavouring to get a quid pro quo on behalf of the community for what we are giving to agriculture, that we will get an unreasonable interference and the hindering of persons really cultivating reasonably well. Take the point of the Mover of the Amendment. What are the special words to which he objected? Let me quote them to the House—
That the owner of land has unreasonably neglected to execute the necessary repairs required for the proper cultivation of the farm of which he is the owner.
I think the land-owning industry is going down economically owing to death duties, taxation, and so on. Events are hastening that on. I hardly know anyone who when a farm becomes vacant does not endeavour to sell it or otherwise has to take it in hand to cultivate it himself. The change is becoming extraordinarily rapid. We are going to become a nation of cultivating owners, and not a nation of landowners with tenant farmers. There is a good deal to be said for and against, and it may be urged that this Bill is one of the minor causes that is hastening on this process. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but there it is. If, however, the land-owning industry is going to go down, let it, at any rate, go down with its flag flying. Let it not be said that this House tried to defeat what is a reasonable proposal, namely, that the landowner should keep in proper repair the buildings which are required for the proper cultivation of the holding he owns.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: That is already the law. It is not necessary to put it into this Bill.

Mr. ACLAND: That is all very well. I know about the existing law, but there are many farms and many estates where the repairs are not attended to as they ought to be.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: That does not argue the necessity for new laws!

Mr. ACLAND: This is my point. There is a very great deal to be said against the process which is going on, namely, the knocking out of the old traditionary landlord. I could argue for an hour that it will be a real loss to the countryside in places, say, like Devonshire and Somerset, where my property happens to lie. This, however, is not the occasion to talk about these things. What I do want to say is that if this process is going on, let us not, at any rate, have it imputed to us that we were trying, from the point of view of the landowner, to resist this which seems to be so reasonable, namely, that so long as we have farms there should be some power in the hands of some public authority, checked by a local committee, on which we have every opportunity to be represented, to see that we maintain the buildings in a proper state for the cultivation of the holdings we own. That is not the sort of thing that the land-owning industry ought to be anxious to support. If we are to get these guarantees—guarantees about which many of us are very doubtful indeed—let us, at any rate, see to it that the matter is settled on a basis which the general public is willing to accept. Let us not fight over and over again in this House with the chance of being beaten. Times change. Let us see to it that the thing is accepted as something like a reasonable compromise and as a reasonable deal between the agricultural industry and the general public. That will not be so if the general public does not feel that bad ownership, bad cultivation, or neglect of scientific methods is not punished, or cannot be taken in hand by some public authority in their own interest and put right. It is infinitely better for the agricultural interest that they should have these matters broad-based upon the people's will, and that the people should feel satisfied that they are getting some return for these guarantees,
rather than that agriculture should say: "We will take advantage of the Government's offer, we will get ourselves solidly established in our system of guaranteed prices, and we will not give the general public anything really fundamental or material in exchange."

Captain FITZROY: This question seems to be so involved, and the question arising on the subsequent Amendment so included in the discussion on this one, that it seems to me best for those who have anything to say upon it to say it now. There seems to be a great confusion of thought as to this question of guarantees. I have had something to do with agricultural questions in this House during the last two years, and I should like to tell the Committee what my views are, at any rate, with regard to the guarantees. It is suggested that the agricultural community through their representatives have asked for guaranteed prices. That may be true, but they have only done it for one reason. They have done it because they say we cannot produce the maximum amount of food for the country, nor pay the wages that we are forced to do under the Wages Board, unless we have some guarantee against serious loss given us by the Government. That is the position as regards the demand on behalf of the agricultural industry for guaranteed prices. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary did agriculture a good service in his speech this afternoon. One of the things which agriculture suffers more from than anything else is misrepresentation in industrial areas. Agriculture has always been misunderstood. The Parliamentary Secretary, I gathered in his reply to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was trying to show what a lot of benefit the agricultural industry was going to get under this Bill, notably the guarantees, and that therefore the industry ought to submit to these drastic measures of control because it was being given so much by the Government. That is the misrepresentation that is made in industrial communities as regards the action of the Government under this Bill, and it is totally untrue. Under this Bill agriculture is getting nothing by the guarantees. What is actually happening is that if the guarantees are successful the nation is getting a great deal in return from agriculture. If this Bill is going to be successful, and
the guarantees produce the results which we all hope for, that is a very much larger amount of food production, then the nation is getting its reward from the guarantees. I do not wonder that there is a considerable amount of difference over this question in the House, because it is an extremely difficult and complicated one.
There is an Amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, which comes later on, in regard to which I should like to protest as strongly as I can against the whole method of legislation by reference. Even those of us who have been engaged in the discussions on the Agricultural Bill in Committee find the greatest possible difficulty in ascertaining what is meant by this Clause. How in the world those who have not taken all this trouble, and have not gone into the question as deeply as we have can understand what is being done by this Amendment I absolutely fail to understand. We understood that the two Bills were going to be drafted into one in order to show what the Bill is as it is now framed, and what it means. I do not know why it has not been done, because this omission renders our task almost imposible. The whole thing depends on whether this Bill succeeds in what it sets out to do.
I am quite convinced that you can never get the food of this country increased in quantity and grown here by methods of coercion. There are inducements in the Bill given to farmers to put the best they can into their work. They are given as much security of tenure as anybody could reasonably demand. If the Bill is successful all those inducements are all very well in their way, but if they do not succeed certainly coercion will not. You will never get people to put their heart into a thing by methods of coercion, and I am amazed at members of the Labour party who are supposed to champion freedom of employment and so forth supporting measures which are supposed to put the maximum amount of compulsion on the farmers of this country. What are the arguments in favour of these ploughing up orders? It is said because we want more ploughed land that it is necessary not so much that we should dictate to the farmers the sort of crops they should grow, but that we should have the land under plough.
It is a question of whether the thing pays or not. If you have land under the plough you have to grow wheat or corn, and you cannot have crops of a different nature, and if those particular crops do not pay it is not fair of the Government to compel farmers to cultivate their land by a certain method if it pays them better to do it in another way. A great argument is that you have to satisfy the public, but you will not do that by misrepresenting agriculture, because that will only make the matter much worse. The way to satisfy the public, whether it is the industrial population or any other, is to tell them the truth, and put the question clearly and plainly before them, and then the natural intelligence of an Englishman and his sense of fair play will lead him to support you much better than trying to make him believe something which is not the case.
What are the arguments against these ploughing orders? I do not want to lay too much stress upon the argument as to their failure in time of war. I do not say they did not have a great deal of land ploughed up, but from an agricultural point of view they were not a success. I know it was done on the spur of the moment in an emergency when the whole success of the War depended on us getting a sufficient food supply. What you can do in a time of war is no argument of what you can do in times of peace. There is another argument which is very strong against these ploughing-up orders. There are some people who think that some form of compulsion of this form is inevitable if we are to avoid nationalisation. Nationalisation may be a right thing in its way, and I do not pretend to understand it, but this ploughing up of land is the very worst form of nationalisation, because the Government is taking upon itself powers to force a great industry like agriculture, against its better knowledge, to do a certain thing, and yet under this Amendment the Government are to take none of the responsibility or obligations should the loss fall upon the individual.
When it is suggested that the least the Government can do if they insist upon these ploughing-up Orders is to give some compensation, we are told that the compensation plan worked very badly during the War, and they are not inclined to repeat the experiment. That may be so, but
let it be remembered that that was a time of great emergency and no doubt the compensation proposals did lend themselves to fraud, and were on that account undesirable. That, however, is no reason why the State should take upon itself the powers given in this Bill in the ploughing-up Orders, without also accepting responsibility for any loss that might thereby be incurred. It is true the right hon. Gentleman has put certain safeguards into the Bill. The Order, for instance, must not injuriously affect the interest of the landowner, and so on. But in an industry like agriculture, no government, no arbitrator, indeed nobody could possibly say, when a field is ploughed up, whether it is going to be injurious to the individual or not. All sorts of weather conditions may prevail which may make it a most disastrous proceeding for the individual interested. The safeguards may be all very well on paper, but they are really worth nothing to the individual affected. I say, therefore, that in their ploughing-up Orders they should frame some form of compensation under which the State will take its share of any loss sustained. I hope and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on maintaining these Orders. If this Bill fails in bringing about what is its aim and object—an increase of the food supply of the people—if you have to insist on ploughing-up Orders, it is an acknowledgment that the Bill is a failure.
I would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw the Amendment he has down reintroducing the ploughing-up Orders which were cut out in Committee. This Bill is in the nature of a great experiment. We hope it is going to be a success. There are those who, like myself, do not like many parts of the Bill, but who nevertheless are prepared to support it, realising, as they do, the extreme importance of increasing the food supply of this country. I hope sincerely it will be a success, but still it is an experiment. There is another great experiment in it, namely the setting up of these agricultural committees as a new authority with powers which have not been entrusted to bodies of that kind before. I hope that they, too, will be a success, but no one can say. Let the right hon. Gentleman strike out his Amendment and give us two or three years in which to prove whether the Bill is or is not a success. If he finds it does not succeed, if he finds that land goes rapidly
back to grass, there will be nothing easier for him than, at some future date, to put the ploughing-up Orders into the Bill again. By that time, too, he will know whether the agricultural committees are doing their duty properly, whether they are giving satisfaction to those over whom they have control, and whether they are effecting the purposes for which they were set up. If he finds they are a success, but that the Bill does carry out the main object of the Government in introducing it, he can still re-introduce his Clauses with regard to ploughing-up Orders. I hope he will consider that aspect of the question. I can assure him if he attempts to introduce these coercive measures into the Bill he will find it will do more harm than good, and he will get less food rather than more.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Debate has tended more and more to be a discussion on a matter which we did not propose to debate at this stage, i.e., the particular Amendment I have put on the Paper and the particular form of control the Government propose to impose. Would it not be much better to dispose of this much broader Amendment here and now, and then come to grips with the point which most interests the House? The last speaker has made an appeal to me to vary my Amendment. I cannot answer him on that point, because it goes far beyond the point at issue. I do suggest it would be the most convenient course to terminate this discussion and get to grips on the main question.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have no objection to that, but I should like to say one or two words in answer to my right hon Friend. He blamed me a little while ago for not having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. I did not vote against it, because a great number of hon. Friends told me it was possible that the Bill, bad as it was, might be amended in Committee and on Report. I did not, therefore, vote against the Second Reading; but I have quite made up my mind, if the Bill emerges from this stage in anything like the form it is now, I shall vote against the Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me how it was I had not voted against the Clauses which gave the guarantees. I have always voted against guarantees,
but I did not think it advisable, when a discussion was going on dealing with the whole Bill, to vote against the guarantees. I voted against the Second Reading of the Corn Production Act, and I believe my action in so doing was right, because the agricultural industry has been entirely deluded by that Act. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Wintringham) suggested that it was quite impossible to have a guarantee without control, because nobody would lend money without controlling the business for which the money was required. Banks lend money to all kinds of people, and do not control their businesses. Money is lent on mortgage, on estates and factories, but the lender does not seek to control either the factory or the estate. I still hold the opinion, as regards guarantees, that the farming industry would be far better without them. The industry had better stand on her own feet and do the best it can in its own interests, which necessarily involve the interests of the nation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Perhaps I may say that, if the House is willing to come to a decision on the present Amendment, I should propose then to call the Government Amendment, and, immediately following that, the Amendment to that Amendment to leave out paragraph (b). That would enable the House to come to an effective decision on the question which is now being debated, and I think that it would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not wish to stand between the House and a decision on this question, provided that it will be in Order, on the Government Amendment, for me to say one further word on the question of guarantees. I think it would certainly be in Order now, but, if I can do so on the later Amendment, I shall be glad to wait until then. Other wise I must say the few words that I have to say on that point now.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it would be in Order, because the power to order certain kinds of cultivation is supposed to be a quid pro quo for the control.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Then I take it that it will be possible to resume the Debate in very much the same strain in which it has been carried on up to the present?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes. The House would then be in the position of pushing its view to a conclusion. I think that that will meet the view of hon. Members.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word

'words' ['there shall be substituted the words'], in paragraph (ii), stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes; 189; Noes, 52.

Division No. 349.]
AYES.
[8.37 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, R. (Nelson and Co[...]ne)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pratt, John William


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gregory, Holman
Prescott, Major W. H.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Purchase, H. G.


Atkey, A. R.
Hallwood, Augustine
Rae, H. Norman


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Robertson, John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Rodger, A. K.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Rose, Frank H.


Barrand, A. R.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Howard, Major S. G.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Blair, Reginald
Irving, Dan
Seager, Sir William


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Johnstone, Joseph
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Briggs, Harold
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Simm, M. T.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stewart, Gershom


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sturrock, J. Leng


Carew, Charles Robert S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sugden, W. H.


Carr, W. Theodore
Lane-Fox. G. R.
Swan, J. E.


Carter, w. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Casey, T. W.
Lawson, John J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Tillett, Benjamin


Clough, Robert
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Tootill, Robert


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lorden, John William
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Vickers, Douglas


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Lunn, William
Waddington, R.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder. Sir H. J. (Camiachle)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon.Trent)


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down. Mid)
M'Lean, Lieut. Col. Charles W. W.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mason, Robert
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Davies, Thomas (Clrencester)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Mitchell, William Lane
Whitla, Sir William


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Moles, Thomas
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Edge, Captain William
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Wignall, James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, w. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Finney, Samuel
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wintringham, T.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Foreman, Henry
Neal, Arthur
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Woolcock, William James U.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nowman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gardiner, James
Parker, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Percy, Charles
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Glanville, Harold James
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles



NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Courthope, Major George L.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Brown, Captain D. C.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Chadwick, Sir Robert
Gretton, Colonel John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lynn, R. J.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Starkey, Captain John R.


Hogge, James Myles
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stevens, Marshall


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Morrison, Hugh
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Roundell, Colonel R. F.



Kidd, James
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Cautley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (ii), to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert instead thereof the following new paragraphs:

"(b) that the production of food on any land can in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation; or
"(c) that the occupier of land has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default; or
"(d) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies."

This is a definite Amendment, around which really the greater part of the discussion of the last Amendment took place. I propose the insertion of words which will give the Government something beyond merely the right to require good husbandry and the right to insist that the necessary tenantable repairs are done. Powers of this nature appeared in the Bill as originally introduced. We had the right to order an improvement of cultivation or a change of cultivation. When we discussed this matter in Committee an Amendment was moved by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Fitzroy) to leave out these powers of improvement or change of cultivation, and after a very long debate upstairs the Committee, by a majority of four, decided to leave them out, contrary to the advice of the Government. We were left simply with the right to insist upon fair rules of good husbandry and on necessary repairs, and we could not insist upon any kind of improvement in cultivation or any change of cultivation. We could not even insist that there should be maintained any part of that arable land which was the result of ploughing-up orders during the War. It has been said that
the ploughing-up policy was a complete failure. That is not the case. I have not the figures with me, but I gave the figures on the Second Reading of the greatly increased production—not merely acreage, but production—during the War, and it is not true to say the ploughing-up policy was a failure. I agree that some mistakes were made, but on the whole the nation was a great gainer, and it seems a great pity that now the whole of that land should be put back to grass.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I was not interrupting for that but because the right hon. Gentleman remarked that as the Bill left the Committee you had no power except as to get good husbandry and repairs. That is not quite so. You have all sorts of powers for giving directions as to cultivation under the Bill.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. and gallant Friend is really not accurate. We have only got powers as to cultivation in respect of what is necessary for good husbandry and the carrying out of necessary repairs. It is quite true that in the second Sub-section, which deals with the Orders, words occur which go beyond that. But the reason for that is very simple. The main Amendment was carried in Committee, but my hon. Friend did not move the subsequent consequential Amendment which should have been moved. The result is that unnecessary words were left in. If we were not proposing to alter the Clause now I should move to leave those words out. That is really the history of these particular words appearing at present.

Mr. TOWNLEY: That is not so according to this Clause.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait his turn.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: All the Clause says is "that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has reasonably neglected to execute the necessary repairs." We already have control of good
cultivation under the Corn Production Act, words which were left unamended, and we added to them the necessity for executing necessary repairs. The words giving us the right to insist upon an improvement in cultivation or a change in cultivation were left out on the Amendment of my hon. Friend and in the subsequent paragraph, where the Executive Orders and instructions are to be given, the consequential Amendment was not moved. Consequently there are redundant words there, but they do not affect the general position at all. I main-main therefore, and I do not think that anyone can gainsay me, that we were left with the right only to insist on fair rules of good husbandly and upon necessary repairs. We do not consider that that is sufficient, and after this Amendment had been carried in Committee several hon. Members who had voted in the majority against the Government felt that they had gone too far and as a result my hon. Friends (Mr. E. Wood and Mr. Lane-Fox) put down an Amendment that there should be control of cultivation, though of a more limited character than we proposed in the original Bill, and it is this Amendment which could not be moved in Committee because it appeared to contradict a decision already arrived at, that I am moving at present. It is quite true it is introduced at a different place, which is the proper place for it, but I am introducing the very words my hon. Friend proposed in Committee, and if therefore I am asking the House to some extent to reverse the decision of the Committee I am simply proposing an Amendment which some hon. Members who voted against the Government before were prepared to propose themselves. My Amendment amounts to this, that in addition to rules of good husbandry and necessary repairs to keep the place in tenantable order we should have the right to insist, not on any change in cultivation but on an improvement in the existing methods of cultivation, and that we should have the right to secure that there should be a certain amount of arable land on the farm if necessary.
We go further. One of the main objections which was taken in Committee to our proposal was this. They said, "You will have representatives from Whitehall coming down and dictating to farmers what crops they are to grow." I have, therefore, put in, here again following the
lead of my hon. Friends, an Amendment on Clause 24 which has to be read in connection with the Amendment I am now moving, the effect of which is that although we can order a change of cultivation we shall have no power to prescribe the actual crops to be grown. The Amendment, therefore, is in a very much more limited form than that which was originally in the Bill. We have heard to-day a great deal about the evils of control. If it were control unrestricted I should be willing to listen to these arguments, but the safeguards which are proposed are of the most ample kind. In the first place the control is to be carried out, not by the Ministry direct, but by the local county agricultural committees, to whom we shall delegate our powers. Secondly, before any improvement of an existing method of cultivation, or before a demand for arable land, can be carried into effect persons interested can appeal to an arbitrator as to whether or not they will be injuriously affected. And thirdly, there is always an appeal as to whether the proposed change is or is not in the national interest. If I were not in charge of the Bill, but in opposition criticising it, the criticism I should be prepared to level at this Clause is not that there is too much control, but that the control is so hedged round and safeguarded that it is likely to be ineffective. That is the criticism that I should make on this Bill. Before we can get a single ploughing-up Order, before we can issue an Order that a man may not lay down to grass land which is already arable, it has to be proved to the arbitrator that it is in the national interest, and that it will not injuriously affect either tenant or landlord. I think the process will be so exceedingly slow, tedious, and difficult, that it is likely in many eases to be ineffective.
Coming back to the general argument, we do claim that in the national interests we want to see the greatest possible amount of food production. We want to grow as much food as possible on our land. There is no reason why we should not produce a great deal more. We discovered during the War that we could produce more, and we do not want to forget the lesson learned during the War. There is no place now for the lazy or indifferent farmer, or the landlord who will not keep his buildings in such repair
that the farm can be properly farmed. We want in the national interest to make the land as productive as we can and to grow at home every ounce of food we possibly can. For that reason we have guaranteed the farmers against the serious loss that they may suffer if the cereal prices—

Sir B. STANIER: On part of their crop.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, but for what, purpose? Te secure that there may be a sufficiency of arable land.

Sir B. STANIER: Not at all.

9.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Nobody suggests that you are going to grow wheat every year on the same land. You will have your usual rotation. We do not propose to interfere with your rotation; but we do say in the national interests that it is necessary to maintain a sufficiency of arable land, otherwise, what happens? What will happen will be what did happen during the War, when we found that the land of our country was two-thirds under grass, that a great many farmers had no equipment of any sort or kind for cultivating arable land, and the Government had to step in and purchase tractors and do the work themselves in many instances. We were caught short, and we had not the equipment on our farms for the production of wheat, which was the absolute life-blood of the nation at that moment. Therefore, having learned the lessons of the War, we wish to maintain a sufficiency of arable land with the necessary equipment. For these reasons we have given these guarantees. I quite agree with my hon. Friends that we are not giving the guarantee to the farmers out of love for the farmers, but in the national interest. As we have done that, we say that in the national interest we have a right to see, subject to suitable safeguards, that that land is cultivated up to the highest point that it reasonably can be, and that we may obtain a sufficiency of arable land in the country. That is the whole object of the Amendment. It may be said that I am again trying to reverse a decision of the Committee. That is not so. The Committee went further than it intended to go. That was shown by the fact that my hon. Friends, whom I have mentioned, put
down this very Amendment that I am now moving. I am not reversing the decision of the Committee in the sense that I am asking the House to put back what was thrown out in the first instance. I do claim in the national interest, subject to the safeguards I have mentioned, that this Amendment is necessary if agriculture is to be treated as a national industry, and is to be employed for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The amount of control that is proposed is necessary. Therefore, I ask the House to accept this Amendment, without which I think the Bill will not be half as effective for the purpose we have in view as it will be if we put this provision in the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It will be just as well to dispose of the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," and then we can come back to the positive Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." I shall then call upon the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay) to move his Amendment to leave out the first of the three paragraphs proposed in the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out paragraph (b).
Those hon. Members who were on the Committee will appreciate the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) and the tact which he employed in guiding the Bill through Committee. Perhaps I may be accused of some degree of inconsistency because in Committee I supported the Government in a somewhat similar Amendment to the one which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, and now I have put down an Amendment to leave out one of the paragraphs. I cannot help thinking that the Amendment proposed requires a considerable amount of criticism. I am not one of those who think that there should be no control. Guarantees were required by the great mass of agriculturists in the country in order that they might grow cereal crops, especially owing to the increase in wages. Without guarantees you would not have got any substantial in-
crease in yield under arable land. At the same time I do not think that the Clause now proposed will have quite the effect that is anticipated. Certain words in it seem to me to require a certain amount of consideration. Take the words "without injuriously affecting." Who is to say what is going injuriously to affect? A man is interested in land which is affected injuriously, and the injurious effects may not develop for two or three years. It is almost impossible for anyone to foretell. Then there are the words "by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation." These seem to be inquisitorial and not essential. It means that the inspectors, who presumably will act under the county agricultural committees, will be entitled to inquire into all kinds of details, and they will have, to be highly qualified and tactful men, while we will require to have a great number of them in order to cover the United Kingdom. I do not think that the inspectors could do this work. If the men engaged in supervision are to be efficient they must be highly paid, which will involve increased cost of administration on the county agricultural committees. If they are not, the whole of this Clause will be absolutely futile.
I think that the paragraph leaves the door open for petty interference. There is no class in the community which has so great an objection to petty interference as tenant farmers or small owners of land. Far from getting the goodwill of the people who actually produce wheat and oats, the effect of this petty interference must be to put their backs up, and you will not get the increase in the acreage of arable which we all desire. The crux of the whole question is that if it pays a farmer to grow wheat and oats, he will grow them, and he will grow them without petty interference. The supervision indicated in paragraph (b) will not produce the benefit which is anticipated. I do not remember in Committee that the words of this Clause were actually put down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox). In any case, I think that the words in this Sub-section require, considerable amendment, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when the measure goes to another place, will have some alteration made. There are a number of bad farmers in this country, and we do not want to bolster them up. We want
to see bad methods of cultivation improved. We do not want to make secure the tenure of farmers who are not cultivating their land properly. But this Amendment, which I am sure is put down by the right hon. Gentleman with the desire of meeting the wishes of the Committee and also, I believe, the majority of this House, goes too far in the way of interference, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to amend it.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to Second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I hope my hon. Friend will take it to a Division. I regard it as one of the most important matters which we have to consider in this Bill. I repeat the protest against the method in which this question, is presented to the House. According to the practice and rules of procedure of this House I believe that I should be justified if I moved to report progress, because nature has given me only two hands and there are three difficult and complicated papers. The first is the Bill, the second the Corn Production Act of 1917, and the third is these long Amendments which are placed on the Paper. The Minister has the advantage over me that he has a desk, and can put one paper in front, and can hold the other two papers, one in each hand. We who sit here have only got two hands, with a bench, and cannot read three complicated papers at once. I protest against the introduction here of a most difficult and complicated question of this kind.
The least the Government could do would be to put down what they propose to do one one piece of paper, which all can read and understand. The subject is one of extraordinary complexity in itself. There is a very large number of Members who take great interest in this question. It is not merely an agricultural question. It is a national question. It is just as much to the interest of the town dweller to understand and discuss this question as it is to the interest of us who are primarily interested in agricultural industry, and it is not fair to have this legislation by reference, and complcated Amendments, superimposed upon us. I have spent hours trying to puzzle out exactly what is and what is not proposed here. Whether I really understand it or not I am most doubtful. I am certain that very few Members do understand exactly what is proposed or could take
the papers concerned and put them together. I do not want to go to the extreme point of moving to report progress, but I hope sincerely that no more Bills of this kind shall be brought forward in this way.
The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has based his defence of these proposals mainly on general grounds. His general ground has been one with which everyone will agree, namely, that it is in the national interest that land should be well farmed and produce the maximum, and that he proposes these measures in order to attain that result. Surely, in order to get the House to assent to that, he has first of all to prow, that these measures will produce that result? He seems to assume that because the House will agree with his motive, therefore it is bound to agree to his definite proposals, whether they are calculated to carry out that motive or not. My right hon. Friend is not entitled for one moment to assume that because I object to these proposals I am any less anxious than he is to see production increased. Most of us have not only the national interest at heart, but, if you want to look to personal interests, it is our personal interest to see this land, which we are cultivating, cultivated to the best advantage. We have to live by it. Do hon. Members suppose that if we thought this kind of control would help us to get more out of the land, we would not support it wholeheartedly? The argument has been used that because of the guarantees there is justification for this control. The real question is, are the guarantees adequate? We had exactly the same arguments brought forward in connection with the Corn Production Act. What were the figures we were given then?
In the year 1920 the guaranteed price of wheat was to be 45s. and of oats 24s. The figures in this Bill are an improvement, but we do not know that they are adequate. My right hon. Friend said, how glad the industry would have been to have had the figures in the bad times of the 'nineties. Let us apply our minds to that. How much good would this guarantee have done us then? Take wheat. The guaranteed price of wheat here is 68s. If you were to ascertain what you would get if the conditions of the 'nineties were reproduced, all you have to ask is, what is
the proportion which the cost of production in the 'nineties bears to the cost of production in 1919, and the same proportion will affect the minimum price. I challenge contradiction when I say that the cost of production in the 'nineties was not one-third of the cost of production today. Will anyone deny that? Labour has trebled its wages for shorter hours. The cost of machinery and everything else is trebled. You would, therefore, get under those conditions one-third of 68s. That would give you 23s. as a maximum. What would a 23s. guarantee have done in the 'nineties? We have had nothing put before us to show us upon what basis these guarantees are to be calculated. I suggest to the Solicitor-General, who is for the moment in charge of the Bill, that in asking the Commissioners to ascertain the guaranteed price, upon which such large claims are based, he is setting them an impossible task. I cannot see upon which basis they are to start. There is the missing factor of the cost of production during the basic period. I defy any mathematician without that factor to say by what means the guaranteed prices are to be properly calculated.
I agree with the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for the Stamford Division (Lieut.-Colonel Willoughby), when he said that the object in getting the guarantees was to be able to pay a fair wage to the agricultural labourer and that out of such guarantees they could not do it. The guarantees must be real to enable us to do it. The examples I have given will show that if the conditions of the 'nineties were to be reproduced these figures would not in any way enable us to pay an adequate wage to labour. There is another fact. These guaranteed prices, in return for which we are asked to submit to this drastic control, are given for two products only, wheat and oats. I believe that the idea in the mind of those who accept that proposal is that wheat has always been regarded as having a barometric quality; in other words, that when the price of wheat is high the price of agricultural produce generally moves more or less in consonance with the price of wheat. I agree that the prices of agricultural produce do rise and fall more or less with the price of wheat. But that applies only to the natural price; it cannot possibly apply to a guaranteed price. Suppose the natural price of wheat were 45s. and that the
guaranteed minimum price of wheat were, as it is here, 68s. Which would be the barometric figure? It would obviously be 45s., and the whole price of agricultural produce generally would be on the 45s. level. What good would that do and how would it help the arable farmer of poor land which cannot grow wheat? Every farmer is the best judge of how to cultivate his own farm to the best advantage. You cannot lay down any general rub and say that everybody is to grow wheat or oats or something else. How will this enable the dairy farmer if the price of milk is low, to pay adequate wages to his labourer because someone else in another district is getting a minimum guaranteed price of 68s. for his wheat?
We are dealing here with the whole agricultural industry, and not merely with those who grow wheat or oats. I do impress upon the House that, from all those points of view, this guaranteed price, although admirably intended, is in reality a sham and a fraud. It really is not going to be a firm post for agriculture to lean upon. I attach value to it from one point of view only, and that is that by guaranteeing this minimum price the House and the Government will show at any rate an intention to take some responsibility for the prosperity of agriculture. I also attach particular value to the personal attitude of the Prime Minister in that respect. I think as the Prime Minister has committed himself to give such guarantees or such national support to agriculture as to enable the land to be properly cultivated, we have a right to come to him if those guarantees fail, and ask him to carry out and to support real measures which will effect the object which these measures have failed to effect. I do attach some value to that, but it is more a sentimental value than a real one.
In return for these guarantees the industry is asked to accept this measure of control. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) said in regard to the question of keeping land clean; that is to say, that land should be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, that a man should keep his ditches cleaned out, and that anybody who goes past his land should not see that it was half out of cultivation, thereby bringing discredit upon the whole agricultural industry. I also agree that, so far as the owner is concerned, there should be powers
in the Ministry, through its agricultural committees, to see that a man keeps his buildings in tenantable repair, so that the tenant may be able properly to cultivate the land. Those two things fit together. They are both essentials to good cultivation. They are both questions of fact and not questions of opinion. Anybody who knows anything about agriculture can say whether the land is being reasonably well cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or whether it is not. Anybody can say whether buildings are being kept in tenantable repair or whether they are not, and I think the agricultural committees of the county councils are very suitable bodies to carry out that work. There is a very strong feeling abroad. I have heard it expressed over and over again by agricultural labourers. I have heard it expressed on the Labour benches opposite. I have great sympathy with it. They say more stuff would be grown if only the farmers would farm better, and if the land were properly cultivated. It exposes the whole agricultural industry to opprobrium when two or three farmers, perhaps in a district, cultivate their land badly. I have no objection at all for that measure of control. Whether the guarantees were adequate or whether they were not, I should be perfectly prepared to submit to it both as to good husbandry and as to buildings.
When we come to this paragraph (b), which my hon. Friend has moved to omit, we are on wholly different ground. You are then asking the agricultural industry to submit to a proposal that some public authority, to whom power is to be delegated by the Minister, is to have the right to say whether land shall be ploughed up or whether it shall not, and to have a voice in the matter of the cultivation of that land. That, in my opinion, must fail in its object. Does anybody really suppose that by issuing an order to a farmer to plough up land which he knows will not pay him to plough up—does anybody in his senses really suppose, because an inspector goes to a farmer, who is not growing wheat at all, perhaps, whose land is not suitable for growing wheat, and orders that farmer to plough up a field, that it will do any good? You cannot make a farmer grow wheat under this Bill. All you can tell him is to plough up a field. What will he do? He will do it at a minimum of expense. He will plough it three or four
inches deep, and then leave it. That is the best thing he can do. What else can he do? [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members to interrupt, but if they were ordered by the State to carry out some operation which was going to be costly to them, and for which they could get no adequate return, and from which they were making their living, would they do it? Suppose they were making their living at some trade or industry and the State ordered them to carry out that trade or industry in some particular way under which they knew they would lose money and would not be able to make a living out of it, would they do it? Of course they would not. All the State can do is to do everything it possibly can to make it pay to cultivate the land well, and to offer the farmer every inducement to do it. If a man does not cultivate his land according to the way the State thinks he ought to cultivate it, it would be very much beter to say that it will turn him out of his farm and find somebody else who will do it; but to leave a man on his farm and tell him to plough up land, when he knows it will not pay him to do so, is an impracticable and hopeless proposition.
When the right hon. Member for Camborne suggests that fruit-growers should be ordered to prune their trees and to put on grease bands, and so on, I agree that is very desirable, but I must remind him that there is nothing in the Bill which enables that to be done. That really does not arise on this question at all. I quite agree that where it is a question of insect pests, it is quite right there should be power to order people to take whatever measures are necessary, but that can already be done by the Board of Agriculture in other ways, and if those powers are insufficient let them be strengthened. That has nothing to do with this question at all. May I say that, so far as my contact with agriculture goes, farmers feel most strongly on this matter? They do not desire to see any interference with their right to cultivate their farm as they believe to be best for the nation, for the agricultural industry, and for themselves. This proposition is an impracticable one, considering the infinite variety and conditions of land in this country. One is constantly hearing of failures. I heard of a case the other
day which is just such a case as might arise here. It was the case of a dairy farm in Essex. A certain body of agriculturists, who had money, thought that that land might be ploughed to great advantage. It was grass land, and they thought it would be much better if it was ploughed and cultivated for cereal crops. They took the farm at an increased rent and ploughed it all up. The result was that they found the land did not answer to the plough. It was unsuitable for ploughing, and a great deal of money was lost, and the land will go back to grass again.

Mr. SWAN: It does not always work out in that way.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I admit it does not always work out in that way, but surely my hon. Friend does not suggest that it would be fair or right or in the national interests that, because, in perfect good faith, an agricultural committee or an inspector thought a particular grass farm would be cultivated in the national advantage better under the plough, therefore they should be given the power of issuing an order compelling the occupier of that farm to cultivate it under the plough, and that, should there be a serious loss owing to that compulsory order, the occupier should have to bear the whole of that loss, which he was compelled to suffer nominally in the national interests? Surely that is not a procedure which anybody can advocate as being just and fair.

Mr. LAWSON: I have seen land before my own window which was lying waste for 50 years and which is now-growing a good cereal crop.

Mr. PRETYMAN: The best way to bring that field into cultivation would be to make it pay to cultivate it. If a man has land which he does not cultivate it would be much better to turn him out and put somebody else in. The issuing of an order to plough up a field is not going to help the situation unless it is going to pay to cultivate it. I do not think it is a practical remedy, and agriculturists do not think it is, and they are opposed to it. I ask the Government not to press this part of their proposal. I voted for the Government on the last Amendment because I was perfectly prepared to accept control to the extent of good husbandry
and to keep the buildings in tenable repair, but when it comes to interference with methods of cultivation I am most strongly opposed to it from the national as well as from the agricultural point of view.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I rise to make a few observations because I think I may be of some assistance to the House if I endeavour to explain the real issue. I think my hon. Friends failed to appreciate the actual terms of my right hon. Friend's proposal. I should not in the least offer any criticism of the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay), or prefer any charge of inconsistency against him in moving his Amendment. He told the House that he voted rather differently in Committee, but this is a matter which so deeply concerns the position of agriculture, for which he has to try to do his best, that I think every hon. Member is not only entitled to pay great attention to it, but to give to the House the best of his experience. The same observation applies to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I know quite well his criticisms are not intended to be destructive, but constructive, and he has shown goodwill by voting in favour of the last Amendment, and in favour of what I may call the principle of control. May I express my sympathy with both hon. Members when they find a difficulty in appreciating the effect of this Clause, when one has to turn to the Corn Production Act and to Amendments on the Order Paper and piece them together. Objection is taken to legislation by reference, but that is a matter the House has largely in its own hands. If one could put down and re-write all the old Statutes, and were sure that Amendments would not be put down to the old part, but that criticism would be directed to the new Statute, then draftsmen would be prepared to draft the whole Bill for the purpose of clearness. But when one finds that the House takes the opportunity of endeavouring to repeal standing legislation, then, as there is great pressure on the House, it is not unnatural, although it may be unfortunate, that a great many Bills are drawn by reference and not by mere statement.
I do not think that some hon. Members fully appreciate how this proposal before us stands. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the
City (Sir F. Banbury) poured a good deal of scorn on Sub-section (iii), and said it was impossible to understand it. I am surprised that with his usual diligence he did not learn that that Sub-section is simply for the purpose of giving security to the tenant farmer, and giving him the right of appeal to an arbitrator before any order is made operative against him. The words may be complex and may deal with a Clause in the Com Production Act, but so far from those words being foolish, stupid or unnecessary, they are words which are perfectly plain in the sense that they enlarge the proviso so as to make arbitration apply.
My right hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, has not been impervious to the criticism offered or unmindful that the Clause as it stood was complex. His Amendment is directed to making Clause 4 more clear. He has broken up his Amendment into (b), (c) and (d). The first, (b), relates to notice served with a view to securing improvement by means of improving the existing method of cultivation; (c) relates to being required to execute the necessary works; and (d) deals with the case of the owner of the land who has unreasonably failed to execute the necessary works of maintenance. If my right hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted there is no question that the successive duties applicable to owner and occupier will be much more clearly and simply stated than at present. There have been those who belong to a school which thinks that there should be no control, but neither the Mover nor Seconder of this Amendment belong to that school. There have been those who have claimed for a long time that agriculture has not received the attention it ought to receive at the hands of the nation at large My right hon. Friend very frankly and fairly said that he recognised in this Bill evidence that there is now a responsibility of the State recognised as attaching to agriculture, and that it would be possible after this Bill had been passed to come to the House and ask that agriculture should receive some assistance in certain eventualities. Before I got into the House I had the honour of being a candidate in one of the best agricultural divisions in the whole of the country, the division now represented by the hon. Member for the Holland Division, and I had the opportunity of spending a great deal of time there in a district which is wholly
occupied by tenant farmers and of learning something of the agricultural needs there. My experience certainly was this, that during the whole of that time, which extended over 10 or 15 years, I was constantly asked that some attention should be given to agriculture and that we should not have the simple policy of laissez faire and do nothing at all Some others may still belong to that school, but without saying more, I observe that the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, and some others, are quite prepared to accept a certain measure of control. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said it would be perfectly fair to require the land to be kept clean and buildings in repair, and perhaps I may pray in aid the experience and the authority in this House of my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. LaneFox), who in Committee said:
Therefore I think these words are far too wide, and if the right hon. Gentleman had words which would merely cover the improvement of grass land I am sure the whole Committee would agree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee), 24th June. 1920, col. 122.]
Then the hon. Member for the Ripon Division (Mr. E. Wood) also pointed out in Committee that, while he thought the words were too wide, he was willing to give the Minister powers for the enforcement of good husbandry. If you put those together you will find, therefore, a measure of support for control by hon. and right hon. Members in this House, fully experienced in agriculture, with every right to speak as authorities on agriculture, and their views converge to this, that no exception could be taken if control was given in respect of keeping land clean, of keeping buildings in repair, and of the improvement of grass land. Do not let us forget that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has put down an Amendment on the Paper that in this Clause a safeguard is to be introduced, providing that directions may be given for
the necessary improvement in the existing method of cultivation, or for securing that the land shall be used for arable cultivation, so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown.
Therefore, it is quite impossible to offer this criticism, that you are going to have
some official from Whitehall telling a tenant farmer that he shall grow wheat instead of turnips, or oats instead of other crops in rotation. That would be excluded, and that is a part of the whole proposal. My right hon. Friend suggested that while you are imposing this control you ought not to impose anything like, a large measure of control, because at the present time the guarantees that are being given do not cover the whole area of the industry of agriculture, and I think that is a well-founded criticism; but the answer is that the control which is suggested to be imposed by the Amendment does not cover the whole area of the industry of agriculture, and, as my right hon. Friend said, the real criticism against the present Amendment is that it goes but a short way and introduces so many safeguards that it may be almost inoperative. It is no use, when you are talking about control, saying, for instance, as if it were germane to the matter, that in the case of banks, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London said, you do not find that anybody would suggest interfering with the way they should carry on their business. He forgets that if that is to be a parallel at all, if you guarantee to the shareholders of the bank that under all circumstances their dividends shall never fall below a a certain percentage, you are then entitled to exercise some control over the way in which they carry on their banks.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is not what the Bill says.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The right hon. Baronet should allow me to offer some criticism, even though he disagrees. I should always hope that he does disagree with me, because if my right hon. Friend ever agreed with me, I should really be very unhappy, but he is one of those who always dissembles his love. If I ever found that my right hon. Friend did not dissemble his love. I really should be very uneasy as to what was going on, but let me come back to my argument. Do not let us accept a grotesque statement as to what this control is. In paragraph (b) notice is to be served
that the production of food on any land can in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation.
But it is excluded, as I have pointed out, that you should definitely dictate what crops should he grown. Paragraph (c) states
that the occupier of land has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default;
and lastly paragraph (c) says
that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies.
In those last two cases you will see that in each case the word "unreasonably" is introduced. Now, what is the structure of the Clause, and how is this control to be imposed? It is to be imposed, according to the Amendment already introduced, "after consultation with the agricultural committee in the area in which the land is situate." It really is almost idle to present to the House that all these agricultural committees know nothing about their business, are suspect, and would use their powers harshly, by caprice and without fairly considering what the position is. The agricultural committee in the area may be trusted to know something about the method of cultivation suitable to the area. It is after consultation with them that a notice can be served. That does not complete the safeguard. If the agricultural committee in the area think that the conduct of the owner or occupier is unreasonable, they can serve the notice. Then what can the owner or occupier do? Under the terms of the second portion of the Clause, he can insist that the matter be referred to arbitration, in accordance with the system of arbitration laid down in the Corn Production Act. He goes to an arbitrator, chosen in a manner above suspicion, and chosen in a manner that he may be a person in whom both sides have confidence, and if he gives his decision that the order shall be carried out, it will be carried out; but if he gives his decision that it shall not be carried out, the whole matter lapses.
10.0 P.M.
Let us see what the value of that safeguard is. If it is nothing, you have got, first of all, to affirm that you have no confidence at all in the agricultural committee in the area. It is not some wild man from Whitehall who has no
knowledge of agriculture, but he has first of all to consult the agricultural committee before this Order is made. To impute ignorance or want of knowledge to this agricultural committee, I venture to say, is to misunderstand the system on which they are chosen, and the class of men from whom they are chosen. Next, supposing they make a mistake, then you go to the arbitrator, and he determines whether or not they are right or wrong, and, until you have got the decision of both those persons—the person who serves the Order after consultation with the committee, and the arbitrator—the Order cannot be effective. It is a mere travesty of the provisions of the Bill to suggest that by some authoritative and by some arbitrary process you can serve an Order upon a tenant to plough up land in circumstances which will do him an injury, land which will be incapable of growing crops which it is suggested should be grown there. There are those—and many of them—who may well doubt whether this amount of control is sufficient, but be it remembered that the Clause as it stands does give the occupier and the owner the safeguards which are certainly of great importance, and should serve to remove the suspicion which confronts this Clause. If we are to draw up a Clause which shall be effective to enable land to be kept clean, and to give control that it shall be kept clean; to insist that buildings shall be kept in repair, and to give control that they shall be kept in repair; to insist that there shall be an improvement in grassland, and to give control so that that shall be enforced, can you suggest that a more fair and equitable method can be devised than giving this power, after consultation with the agricultural committee, and giving an appeal to the arbitrator? The object of the Mover and Seconder here is not to get rid of all control, but to give limited control. I have ventured to put before the House the fact that there is a very large measure of safeguard in the exercise of this control, and once you come to the conclusion, as a large number of Members of this House have come to the conclusion, that some control is necessary, then I venture to say that the system which is proposed is one that is fair and equitable, and certainly one which ought not to be travestied as being one that could be used harshly, or unjustifi-
ably, or by caprice without the owner having an adequate opportunity of being heard.

Mr. E. WOOD: We have had the opportunity of listening to a long Debate, and we have just had the pleasure of listening to my hon. and learned Friend. I think there is some force in one of his concluding observations, which was to the effect that he thought he might reasonably complain about the proposals of my right hon. Friend's Amendment having been in certain quarters travestied and rather exaggerated. I will return to that, if I may, in one moment. He also said that the Government were justified in what they proposed on the ground that it was reasonable that they should obtain or retain a certain measure of control. In that position, having disposed of the last Amendment, I can assure him there is no substantially effective difference of opinion in any quarter of the House, so far as I know. The real point of difference to which we have to address ourselves at the moment is whether or not we are prepared to recommend and accept at this moment the form of control my right hon. Friend wishes us to have. I do not know that I should have intervened in this Debate if it had not been that the right hon. Gentleman referred to me and my hon. and gallant Friend who sits beside me in connection with some part we played in the earlier dealings with this matter in Committee upstairs. I think he was good enough to say we had given him a lead in this matter. I do not know whether I shall be justified in so far indulging in reminiscence as to go into full details of all the past, but I will content myself with saying that the position upstairs was rather a difficult one, and it was one in which all the feelings of pity I had for my right hon. Friend were very warmly aroused, and on those feelings of pity I endeavoured to act. I am bound to say I adhere to my original position, which I adopted in the Committee, and the reasons I shall give are not the same as have been given so far. I shall not be able to support the Government position in this matter, but I shall feel compelled to support the attitude of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite.
It is perfectly true that there has been in some quarters a great deal of what my hon. and learned Friend characterised, I
think, as a grotesque travesty of the facts of the Government Clause. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lambert) this afternoon drew one of his charming word pictures of the evils of control, with which, I think, most of us who have any acquaintance with agricultural questions warmly sympathise. I am bound also, I confess, to take exception to the statement which has been repeated more than once, and repeated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman just now, that there is any analogy at all between banks and that class of institution, and agriculture. Let me point out again—for it cannot be repeated too often—that when it is supposed that the guarantee is a substantial benefit to agriculture, it is equivalent really to saying we will guarantee that you will not lose more than one or two per cent, if you put your money into our business. In industrial affairs that would not be regarded as a very satisfactory prospectus in order to attract money into a business. It is perfectly true, though my right hon. Friend appears to have exaggerated it in view of the machinery established, that it is possible to attract a farmer from plough-mania. There is the Agricultural Committee, the award of the Arbitrator, and the rest of it. Therefore, I quite frankly confess that the idea that under the Government Amendment there would be any fantastic schemes of ploughing out seems to me quite in the realms of fancy and imagination. I for one am not the least bit afraid of that.
In this matter the experience of the War is a very fallacious guide, and does not a bit prove that because certain things were done during the War under these powers that they would therefore happen in a time of peace. Everyone knows that during the War we were working on a quota basis: there was a rough-and-ready idea in the minds of those doing the work of what they wanted to be at. I want to say this to my hon. Friend opposite who dealt with the question of control. There is really no attempt in any way to attack the bad farmer. I do not think I or any of my friends have any wish to do that. We recognise to the full the importance of effecting, if I may so put it, a reconciliation between the farming interest and the national interest. We cannot too often emphasise
that this is first and foremost a national question, and that our duty is so to achieve our object as to avoid inflicting injury on the farming interest. I am not sure that there is not some truth in the criticism that will be put forward possibly at a later stage, that one of the dangers of the Bill may be in Part II, to rivet a second-class farmer on the land. In so far as that may be true, it is a justification for my right hon. Friend in attempting to discover some means to turn the second-class farmer into a first-class farmer. I am also not unmindful of the importance in this matter of trying to carry the industrial element and the industrial representatives along with the agricultural representatives in a Bill designed to achieve the national object of a regenerated agriculture. I hope I have enough sense and foresight to recognise that as years go on industrial representatives are going to have more and more power over agricultural life in the direction—to take only one example—of the milk supply, and the inspection and the cleanly production of milk, meat production and slaughter, and so on. For all these reasons, and inasmuch as they hold my fortunes as an agriculturist in their hands, the last thing I want to do it to antagonise them by appearing to take up an unreasonable attitude in these discussions.
Having said all that—which I have said in order to make my point of the general effect of the Government proposal, although it has been very much exaggerated in many quarters—let me come in one sentence to the reasons why I am not able to support my right hon. Friend. My reasons are two. The first is that since we discussed this matter in Committee and since I had the opportunity of discussing it privately with my right hon. Friend in conjunction with the Amendment that appeared in my name on the Committee Order Paper, I have been impressed with one thing more than anything else in my acquaintance with agricultural bodies and individuals in my constituency and outside of it; that is, that if there is one thing which is going to jeopardise the success of this Bill more than anything else it is the suspicion with which the farmer regards the imposition on him of a liability by an outside authority without any chance of compensation if the prophecies of that outside authority
are wrong. I do not think he is unreasonable. The best chance of these disposals depends more than anything else on the confidence with which the farmer receives them.
My second reason is that only to-day I learned that there had been—I think this morning or afternoon—a very full and representative meeting in London of a body known as the Federation of War Agricultural Committees, which hon. Members will be aware is an assembly of representatives of all the War Agricultural Committees in England and Wales. That body to-day passed a resolution, or anyhow came to a unanimous decision, that they do not want the powers that the Minister is seeking to take under this discussed Sub-section (B). These are the people who will have to carry the thing out. I am bound to say that until I heard that fact, as my hon. Friend knows, I was in considerable doubt whether I should not be inclined to support his proposal; but I must quite candidly profess to the House, that, after hearing that, and knowing that these people who have come to that decision are not the uninformed farmer, who lives down a green lane and does not read agricultural debates or newspapers, but responsible gentlemen representing the best-informed agricultural opinion in each of their counties—in face of that information, to force this policy on those who will be responsible for its execution seems to me to be the height of unwisdom. For that reason more than the other I cannot support my right hon. Friend.
In conclusion, I would appeal to him, that although he will be very much disappointed with my failing to support him to-night, I am sure that he will be the first to admit—and I think it is right to say—that all who have endeavoured to act together on the Committee have been so far as we could anxious to help him in the discharge of a very difficult task.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Hear, hear!

Mr. WOOD: I am sure I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we, too, recognise and appreciate to the full the way in which he has been prepared on his side to help and meet us. We are doing a very difficult thing. It is only by trying to give and take a bit that we can in any way hope to achieve success. Therefore I appeal to my right hon.
Friend to think this matter over again in order to see whether he cannot so strengthen the definition of the rules of good husbandry as to cover the cases that we all want to see covered. I want to see covered the case of the man who has bad pasture and refuses to improve it, and I could mention other cases of a similar character. I earnestly appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider his Amendment in the direction I have indicated.

Mr. ROYCE: I have listened to the excellent speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wood) and some of his remarks have given me very great pleasure. I could not help contrasting them with some of the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) this afternoon. Criticism has been levelled at the industrial party that they take no interest in agriculture. May I point out that we had nothing to do, or at any rate very little, with the constitution of the Ministry of Agriculture which was largely the work of hon. Gentleman opposite, and when that Ministry brings in a measure which we think is good and desire to support, a certain amount of satire is thrown upon us by the right hon. Gentleman because we do so. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be rather pleased that the Members of the Labour party are prepared to accept this Bill. We are prepared to accept a guaranteed price and the Wages Board, and we support security of tenure. That being so, surely it should not be a subject for throwing discredit upon our party.
The awakening of interest on the part of the industrial section of the House of Commons in regard to agriculture ought to be a subject for congratulation, because it can only be for the benefit of agriculture generally. I think it ought to be regarded as a step in the direction of improving agriculture. We support the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has brought in, but it does not go far enough for us. We would like the private interest which he desires to preserve should not receive so much recognition. I am reminded of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) yesterday when he said that the two parts of the Bill are interdependent. He stated
that the State demands that the farmer should farm his land in the interests of the State. If that is so, surely private individual interests ought not to receive quite so much consideration as is indicated in the Amendment. To that extent we are not in favour of it, because we wish that all private interests should be subordinated to State interests. I am surprised at the action of my hon. Friend opposite. I have the greatest possible admiration for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy) because, as Members of the House of Commons, the Labour Members have received much consideration at their hands. For that we are grateful. But when they take up the attitude which they have done in relation to this Bill, we are filled with astonishment. This measure is not levelled at the good farmer; it will not touch him; he is perfectly immune. I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) that the Federation of Agricultural County Committees had today passed a resolution that they did not want anything to do with the compulsory powers. But that is no indication that there is no need to exercise these powers. What is the objection to constituting county agricultural committees?

Sir F. BANBURY: There might be other means.

Mr. ROYCE: No institution is quite perfect, perhaps not even the City of London for the matter of that. I repeat that this Bill is not levelled at he good farmer, and speaking for my own county I doubt if there is a single instance in which the county agricultural committee would be called upon to interfere. But there is a necessity for the powers demanded by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. Take the Wages Board as an illustration. It orders that wages be increased. The very first thing the recalcitrant farmer who does not agree with that says is: "I will put my land down to grass." Where does the question of good agriculture come in there? So long as he keeps down the thistles and weeds he can have all his farm in grass, and that I venture to assert is not in the national interest. Mention has been made of the fact that a good deal of land is going out of arable cultivation and that in itself is proof of the necessity for some
such powers being introduced as are contained in this Bill. The safeguards seem to me perfectly adequate. The fact is that in the first instance the county agriculture committee has to make complaints that the farmer is not cultivating his land properly; then before any action can be taken the matter has to be referred to the Central Authority, and then it can be referred to arbitration. What has a farmer to fear in that connection? There is the further safeguard that if any person's interests are injuriously affected no action may be taken. Surely there is sufficient protection here, sufficient to satisfy anyone, that the powers granted to the agricultural committees which for the most part, will be elected bodies and which in agricultural counties will no doubt be composed of agriculturists of repute, need give rise to no fear. It has been admitted that there are instances which the committees must deal with. In speaking of the amount of land that has gone out of cultivation, one must think in terms of the years that are past, and of the area that was under wheat and is now under grass in this country. There are tens of thousands of acres that would produce good arable crops, but which are at present under grass.

Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask the hon. Member why they went down to grass?

Mr. ROYCE: In all probability they went down to grass during the period of great agricultural depression. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"!] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but we have no such depression in agriculture at the present time. Why cannot that land be used in the national interest for producing food for the people? My right hon. Friend, the Member for Chelmsford, indicated the reason that has existed for that in many recent instances. I am afraid that we attach far too much importance to the action of the War Agricultural Executive Committees during the War. The circumstances then were abnormal, and are not likely to occur again. The nation demanded that certain areas should be ploughed up in certain localities, and the War Executive Committees did their best to carry that out in the national interest. It is true that mistakes were made, but they were very few, and the end was attained. In my own county we ploughed up grass land that produced, during one year,
more than 100,000 tons of potatoes. Surely that was a great success, at a period of great national necessity.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: It paid you.

Mr. ROYCE: If land will grow potatoes it will, surely, grow corn. I see no reason to fear that the powers which will be placed in the hands of the County Agricultural Committees will be abused, especially after the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood). There is another reason why the County Committees should be entrusted with these powers. They are, as I have said, composed of agriculturists—certainly that is the case in agricultural counties—and you must give them some interest. It is no use constituting bodies of this kind and giving them nothing to do. They will die of inanition. If you give them the power, they will bring agriculture to a higher standard than it attains at the present time. They will make bad farmers cultivate their land up to the average standard of their respective counties, and that will be a great national advantage.
I rather regret that the provision with regard to injuriously affecting any person concerned in the land has been included. I would give the Ministry of Agriculture greater powers than they ask for in their Amendment. I think the Clause will be almost inoperative on account of the inclusion of those words. It will not be sufficiently strong to be of any special use. Let us suppose that two persons are joint owners of a farm, and pursue different businesses in agriculture. The interest of one of them is bound to be affected if an Order is made to cultivate in a different manner from that which is being followed, and consequently nothing will be done. I would make the Clause stronger. The threat is being continually made by farmers in some parts of the country, when an extra 1s. or 2s. is put on to the agricultural labourer's wages, "We will do without the men and lay our farms down to grass." That should be stopped in the national interest. This party will support the Government in the interests of agriculture and of the Gentlemen opposite who are now opposing the Bill. The closer you can bring farming to industrialism, the better for all parties concerned. Do not, in this instance, say or do anything that can alienate the spirit which at present permeates this party. We are
actuated simply by the desire to do the best we possibly can for the land in the national interest. We shall support the Clause, regretting that it has not been made a little stronger.

Sir R. ADKINS: I am quite sure the party for whom the last speaker has spoken so clearly and courteously is not the only party in this House which desires the welfare of the country and the welfare of agriculture. This is one of those occasions on which there is a universal desire to do what is best in one of the most complicated problems with which this House can possibly be concerned. Agriculture has to a far greater degree than almost any other occupation complications which arise out of atmospheric conditions, complications that arise out of variety of soil and situation, and all those things make it much more difficult than it is in many other occupations to draft an Act of Parliament to lay down regulations and to mark out the exact sphere within which the State can properly intervene and those in which private enterprise and private judgment can have their scope. I hope the Bill will become law in a form and with provisions which will be of real value to agriculture and of real and permanent value to the country, and I am quite certain all hon. Members desire that the varying interests concerned in agriculture should be equitably adjusted and composed. In this Amendment there were three Sub-sections, the two latter dealing, as has been pointed out by the Solicitor - General in his elaborate utterance, with repairs and various other matters and this one dealing with methods of agriculture and with the changing of land from pasture to arable. My hon. and learned Friend argued that the principle of control had already been admitted by the House in the rejection of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). It is perfectly true that the principle of control has been admitted, but that does not get you much further. The whole question of the extent of the control and the character of the control is where the difficulty lies. It is comparatively easy to have an enactment providing that the landlord who is responsible for repairs shall execute them, or that the tenant who is responsible for certain definite duties in connection with his holding shall
carry those out, and I, for one, am cordially in favour of these other two Sub-sections. But when you pass from those things, from controlling people in respect of that which is left undone, to proposing to control them in the choice of what they should do, you come to a very much more difficult matter. It is exceedingly difficult in actual practice to make people do things—far more difficult than it is to punish them, if necessary, when they do things that are wrong.
There are two or three points which arise in this matter. This power which the Government is asking to have put in the Bill is a power to be exercised by the Ministry of Agriculture after consultation with the County Agricultural Committee. Many of us are familiar with that blessed phrase after consultation with "so and so." The number of Acts of Parliament in which it appears are very many, and the meaning which is attached to it in practice is a very variable meaning. If this means that the Ministry of Agriculture is not going to act without the sanction and approval of the County Agricultural Committees, the burden and the difficulty of carrying it out rests with these County Committees. If, on the other hand, the Ministry of Agriculture is going to do this according to its own view of what is right and proper, disregarding, it may be, in the exercise of its judgment the criticisms or suggestions of County Committees, you have quite a different state of things arising. The County Agricultural Committees do not want this. My hon. Friend opposite, with his delightful debating talent, suggested that as they do not want to do this they would therefore discharge it without unfairness. No doubt they will discharge it without conscious unfairness, but when practical men say, "We do not want to have this put upon us because we do not think it is a work that we can properly carry out," it is not the height of wisdom to press it upon them. There has been instance after instance in the last half century where duties have been put upon the local authorities by zealous Governments and enthusiastic Houses of Commons, but in practice they have not worked out well because those familiar with local conditions and with the limitations of local authorities know they cannot be properly carried out. It is most important to
notice that the County Agricultural Committees do not want this.

Sir R. WINFREY: What evidence have you of that?

Sir R. ADKINS: The hon. Member was not adorning the House with his presence when the hon. Member for Ripon gave direct evidence on the subject.

Sir R. WINFREY: Yes, I was. They do not report, the agricultural committees. The committees have never passed a resolution. It is only one man from each committee.

Sir R. ADKINS: My hon. Friend is quite unintentionally misleading the House. When you get a central council—

Sir R. WINFREY: They do not report the committees.

Sir R. ADKINS: When you get a central council of the agricultural committees, and when, as my hon. Friend ought to know, if he does not know, that council of the agricultural committees is constructed round the core of the War Agricultural Committees, the opinion of those men, coming from all parts of the country, is an opinion to which I and other members attach some value.

Sir R. WINFREY: I am a member of one of those committees, and we have never been asked to send in a resolution.

Sir R. ADKINS: I think my hon. Friend is a member of a very minute one, and I am sure the minutiæ will be attended to after his protest. Meanwhile, with that wonderful exception of a minute county, the greater part of this country is represented on the body to which my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Wood) referred. The argument against this aspect of the proposal is stronger. There is nothing more difficult, and there are few things more invidious than to ask the members of a county agricultural committee to decide whether particular farmers in that county are or are not to plough up their land. It is an extremely difficult and invidious thing to do. While I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Wood) that we ought not to press too far analogies from what took place in time of war, it has some bearing on this point, namely, that members of war agricultural committees who had in time of war to decide what was to be ploughed up in
this parish or in that parish, yet, so far as my knowledge goes—and I had acquaintance with many in the county in which I live—they loathed the duty, which they regarded as a difficult, invidious, and most unsatisfactory duty. While we must not press the war analogies too far, the House might possibly be willing to accept this as a genuine argument that in time of war English people will stand a great deal that they will not stand in time of peace. In time of war action which appears to impinge upon the liberty of the subject is endured because of the time of crisis in which it occurs. To sterotype and make permanent in time of peace methods chiefly appropriate to war, and even in war disliked, is surely a method which statesmanship will do well to avoid if they can possibly gain their legitimate objects by any other method. If the county agricultural committees are to be merely a screen between the Ministry and the particular farmers, then the case is worse, for it is still more difficult to carry out these duties with success and acceptance if it is done by Government officials. Government officials are of the greatest value in noting, inspecting, often in preventing things being left undone, but it is difficult—in agriculture, perhaps, more difficult than in anything else—to derive initiative from Government forces, and force dynamic action on persons who are indisposed to take it.
I make this criticism in no spirit of hostility to the Bill. It is of great value, and I wish it well. But as a member of a county agricultural committee and chairman of a county council, who had a great deal to do lately with helping to form a county agricultural committee, I am confident that this provision is not calculated to work well, but will arouse opposition from all interested quarters. When you are dealing with landlord's repairs you very properly have the tenant anxious to see deficiencies remedied. When you are dealing with the tenant's obligations to have the hedges cut and so forth, you have the landlord anxious to see that done; but if you try to get a farmer to plough up land when he is convinced that it would be to his loss and would not be the best way of treating the farm, you have no one with local knowledge interested in seeing that this is done. Therefore, you make the matter
more difficult, and in practice this will not work in the way the Government intend. Agricultural committees are not bodies which will have nothing to do if this duty is not imposed on them. They will have many things to do which, if well done, will improve the agriculture of this country, but this particular provision, so different from the other provisions of this section, is one which I appeal to the Government not to press. The hon. Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy) took the important point that this Bill, however well we wish it, is of necessity an experiment. All other parts of the Bill have a great volume of opinion behind them. Is it not reasonable first to work those parts, and then if you find the need for this there will be far more hope of working it satisfactorily when the rest of the Bill is in working order than if this contentious and almost detested provision is inserted in the Bill, as it will work badly and affect very much the sympathetic attitude of important sections of the public towards this Bill, an attitude which the Government desire to encourage and which I, as a supporter of the Bill, would not like to be hindered by this provision.

Mr. GARDINER: As representing one of the largest agricultural constituencies in Scotland I may say that my constituents are much interested in this Bill. I differ entirely from some hon. Members opposite who have expressed themselves as alarmed at the result of the Bill. No doubt they have expressed their views as a result of their own experience. Having had considerable experience, not only of agriculture, but also in connection with war agricultural committees, I will describe what my experience has been. In the first place, agricultural committees are surely misunderstood by some hon. Members. Every agricultural committee I know has intimate knowledge of agriculture and an intimate knowledge of the district in which control is to be exercised. They are, therefore, well able to ensure that nothing injurious to the cultivation or the country results from the orders they give. There must have been serious mistakes made by some committees to justify some of the strong expressions of opinion I have heard to-night. In my part of the country the experience has been the very opposite, and in my own constituency the
result has been to raise the standard of cultivation and intensive farming by at least 50 per cent. I am looking at the subject from the point of view of the practical farmer. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite claim to be deeply interested in agriculture and they talk about being farmers. I do not question that claim, but I suggest that the great majority of them are landowners farming their own farms, or professional men who have farming as an adjunct to their professions. I am glad to think that the representatives of the farm labourers in the House support the Bill. I speak as a tenant farmer and on behalf of the tenant farmers of Scotland, who have expressed through their Farmers' Union a strong desire, to support the Bill, and especially this Clause, because they argue that if we are to have guarantees we must have control. That being so, I cannot see why my friends should be so frightened of control. As a farmer I do not fear control at all. If you cultivate in the best interests of yourself you will be cultivating in the best interests of the country. A man who is doing everything that is possible never fears the visit of the executive officer.
I think the great majority of farmers are farming well, but I agree that all farmers are not good farmers. We want to see agriculture in the future in a more prosperous condition. There should be more intensive cultivation applied to the land all round. It is quite true that the days of submarines have ended and there is not, as a few years ago, a great crisis of national need for foodstuffs, but if we do not keep before us the ideal that it is possible, with the exception of wheat, to supply from this country sufficient foodstuffs to provide for the whole country, then we fail in our duty. We ought to be a self-supporting nation so far as foodstuffs are concerned. Reference has been made to grass lands. There is a large area of land that "went into grass" at the time when farming was under a cloud. Why has it not been brought back to cultivation when there was the possibility of making money out of the ploughing of the land? It seems to me that some of my friends opposite emphasise far too much the question of profits as if there were nothing in the world to live for except filthy lucre. I always understood that we were to learn
some lessons from the War. I am delighted to know that one hon. Gentleman opposite is interested in farming, because I thought his interests were confined to the City. He suggested that during the War there were sacrifices made. I admit it frankly; but why should not there be sacrifices made to-day? We ought to have reached the stage of thinking about others as well as thinking about ourselves.
In passing, let me say this: Generally speaking, the home farms that are cultivated by landlords are the poorest cultivated farms in the kingdom. I admit frankly there are notable exceptions, but, generally speaking, that is the case. While we have poor cultivation by the ordinary farmer, we also have very bad cases of poor cultivation of home farms. There is a landlord in my constituency, one of the finest men that ever breathed, a man who has sacrificed much for his country, and who loyally responded to the call of duty. At that time he was opposed to ploughing. He said, "You will never plough an inch of my land," and he used language which, I am afraid, would scarcely be thought fit or proper in this assembly. The result of ploughing was this: He had magnificent land on which there was poor grass, which had been laid down many years ago, and which had never been improved or helped in any shape or form. I used to see a few rabbits enjoying themselves there, polluting the grass, and making it impossible for cattle or sheep to live on. The other day it was my privilege to be present at a public sale, where, as a result of the Ploughing Order and continued cultivation, he sold £9,000 worth of potatoes off that holding. He told me himself that it had been to him financial salvation. That is not a solitary case. I can give case after case like it.
When it comes to the ordinary farmer the same thing applies. It is all very well to speak about our farmers, but we have to take things as they are. I know that many of my friends who are farmers have inherited, I hope, the virtues, but certainly the vices of their forefathers, and we have sometimes that kind of farming which was described by an hon. Gentleman opposite, of ploughing four inches deep or less—a little scratching with a harrow, the sowing of a few seeds, and the whole thing is done. Some of these men were asked
by the War Agricultural Committees to plough, and were also told that it would be necessary for them, if they ploughed up the land, to apply proper manure. They thought it was rather rude and interfering too much with their personal liberty, and a great many other things, but they obeyed, and the result has been that these men today financially are in a far better position than ever they were, and anybody passing their land to-day, who had passed by it in the old days, would say that the farms had so much improved that there must be new tenants on them.
Some hon. gentlemen have referred to farming according to the rules of good husbandry, and evidently they go no further than that. I would like to ask any Gentleman in the House what the rules of good husbandry really are. If you take up any of the leases in Scotland, you will find that most of them debar a man from putting more than a very limited acreage of potatoes under cultivation in any one year, and to have potatoes growing twice would be sacrilege. I suggest that if hon. Members interested in agriculture would visit Ayrshire in the month of July they would find potatoes growing now where there had been nothing but potatoes growing for 25 or 30 years, and if they can show me any better cultivation anywhere than on that Ayrshire coast, I should like to go with them to see the place. Evidently good husbandry requires to be defined. There are many other items in connection with good husbandry which, I think, are misunderstood. I may have failed in many things, but I began at the bottom and I have worked my way upwards, and I know everything that can be done on a farm, and I have intimate knowledge of the subject of which I am speaking. I am perfectly convinced that what is proposed by the Government in this Bill will not hurt the tenant farmers, or any farmer, but will help them materially, and at the same time will help 1he nation considerably.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Probably the land to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was very good, and that made the ploughing order so successful.

Mr. GARDINER: I farm very poor land in a very poor district.

Mr. LANE-FOX: The hon. Member told us that in his part of the world War
Agricultural Committees had made no mistakes. I am the last person to say anything against War Agricultural Committees, as, for a short time, I happened to serve as a Commissioner, but we must remember that they were working under special conditions to produce a quota in each county, and it is not a fair comparison when considering this Sub-section. There are many agriculturists in this House who are prepared to accept control, and some form of control is expected by the country when guarantees have been accepted, but many who are not prepared to oppose this Bill altogether would find it much easier to support it if this Sub-section were withdrawn. The country gave the guarantees because the country wants food, and the only way it can get food is by giving confidence to the farmer. It is absurd for hon. Gentlemen to pretend that you can make any man produce at a loss.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

MINERS' STRIKE.

MEN RETURNING TO WORK.

STATEMENT BY MR. BRIDGEMAN.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. GREENWOOD: I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines if he can give any information that will be a guide to those who are having workpeople stopped under the Coal Emergency Act, as to whether the Coal Emergency Orders will be cancelled forthwith or not, so that these industries may start work again immediately.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I understand that it has been decided to recommend that the miners shall go back to work forthwith.

Mr. ADAMSON: If I may interrupt. The strike has been declared off, and the
men return to work. That is more than "recommending.'

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is still more satisfactory, and I am very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. Assuming that the men do go back to work, I think the policy of the Department, which I represent, will be to give as free a hand as possible to all industrial concerns to use the stocks that they have got to the best advantage, and they must be the best judges of that, having in view the fact that owing to the strike having lasted nearly three weeks, it may not be easy to replenish these stocks at once. I think I may say that our desire is to take off all the restrictions that were put on with regard to industrial coal, but I cannot give any undertaking that it will be possible at once to relax the restrictions with respect to domestic coal. That question is to be considered immediately, but I think it may be necessary in the interests of the small user of domestic coal, to keep those restrictions on in some form or other for a little time. It certainly is our desire to relax them at the earliest possible moment for everyone concerned, but we must have in mind the needs of the small householder, and be quite sure that he will not be left without enough coal to go on with, and that whatever there is in stock will be used in such a way as to enable him without risk of shortage to carry on and use whatever coal is necessary. Therefore I think I can assure my hon. Friend that it is our desire to relax, as far as possible, the restrictions on domestic coal, and, if the men go back to work, to relax entirely the restrictions on industrial coal, but I would ask him and those who are concerned with industrial coal to remember that it may be rather difficult to replace the stocks in the course of the next two or three weeks.

Mr. SUGDEN: Arising out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, both with regard to the steel and iron trade, very large preparations are necessary, do we understand that the "forthwith" which he suggests means commencing to-morrow or the day after? Those of us who are cognisant of the psychology of the Lancashire miners know that a decision having been come to, they will immediately, in one or two days, take
steps to produce the coal which is so essential. Do we understand, therefore, that, if the miners commence work on Monday morning—if they commence on Friday morning, as the leader of the Labour party suggests—the Department will give clear opportunity for the great iron, steel, cotton and woollen industries to obtain supplies of coal on the same day?

Major GLYN: May I ask whether we may take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that it is the intention of the Government to urge upon the railway companies to put into force the normal services before Monday of next week? Is it understood that, if the miners go back to work as soon as possible, there are sufficient stocks of coal at the disposal of the railway companies to put in force the normal traffic, at any rate over the week-end? It would make a great difference to many people who have been restricted in their movements to have an early intimation of this. The railway companies will want to know whether they may use up their reserve stocks, and whether it will be possible for the normal traffic at the week-end to be put in operation.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In regard to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Sugden), it is impossible for the Mines Department to guarantee that coal will be available for restocking the industries. What I said was that I hoped we should be able to allow those industries which have stocked coal to use that coal to the best of their judgment, and in the way it can be best employed to keep as large a number of people as possible at work during the next few days. I cannot, of course, guarantee that a further supply can be given in any district within any particular time. In regard to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that will be a matter for the Minister of Transport. But in relation to the whole matter, no hon. Member will expect me to give a very definite answer within a few hours of the decision arrived at this afternoon. I can only say that everything will be taken into full consideration, and it is our desire to relax restrictions as soon as it is possible to do so.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.